Devolution (Implications for England)
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I do not think it is open to the Labour party to opt out of a cross-party process and accuse the rest of us of being partisan. This is a Command Paper on which two parties have participated. There would have been no harm at all in the Labour party putting its own proposals into this Command Paper, and the reason we have set out a number of proposals is so that there can be a debate, not a rush to a single proposal, and there can be consultation about those proposals. I look forward to the comments on these options from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why has my right hon. Friend rejected the simple and straightforward solution precedented in the Government of Ireland Act, what happened in Stormont and, indeed, in the Scotland Act itself, that if a part of the United Kingdom has less power for its own MPs, those MPs should be reduced in number? Would that not make it possible to ensure a better solution? It also means that the reduced number of Scottish MPs would at least have full voting rights in this House.
Mr Hague
There is of course a precedent for that in relation to Northern Ireland in the past. [Hon. Members: “And Scotland.”] My hon. Friend is talking about a reduction below a proportionate representation in this House of Commons, and that has not been done for Scotland, to correct the hon. Members opposite. There is a precedent for that, but I do not think it is the answer to this question. When it comes to decisions about peace or war and major issues of foreign policy or economic policy for the entire United Kingdom, I think it is very important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be able to share equally in that on the basis of equal constituency sizes, which is a matter we will have to return to.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
On that point, I had one pint actually, which another hon. Member paid for—it is a fine Yorkshire tradition that somebody else buys the round—so I do not know where that comes from. I have had to cut back quite considerably since the days of having 14 pints.
The hon. Lady is quite right, of course, to refer to the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, which makes this year’s remembrance services especially poignant, exactly as she said. We will all have that in our minds as we attend local or national remembrance services this weekend. There was a service in the Undercroft yesterday, which you attended, Mr Speaker. It is important for us to commemorate on the Order Paper the sacrifices of House staff as well as former Members, and I am sure we can all join together in giving further thought to how to do that.
On Commons business, the hon. Lady asked about next Monday’s debate. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not completed its consideration of this statutory instrument, which is a substantial one, because it brings together all the measures necessary for opting in to those of the 35 measures that require regulation to be passed. It is substantial, and I understand that the Committee will return to this on Tuesday. It is not unprecedented for the House to consider a statutory instrument—[Interruption.] It is unusual. It has not happened in this Parliament, but it has happened in previous Parliaments. [Interruption.] I am assured that it has happened in previous Parliaments, and I think the assurances I have received should be good enough for the rest of the House. There is no barrier and no ruling to prevent this from happening. We will do so on Monday—subject, of course, to the Joint Committee completing its consideration on Tuesday. Our rules are different from those of the House of Lords in that respect. By having the debate on Monday, provided that the business of the House motion is carried at the beginning of the day, we will be able to have a full day’s debate—a much longer one than would be usual on statutory instruments. We are also able to ensure that the issue can return to the European Council agenda, for which we need to give 16 days’ notice before 1 December—and there are very good operational reasons for us to have completed our consideration before that date. [Interruption.] I am explaining to hon. Members on both sides why this is being timed when it is, and why it is important to do this on Monday. We shall do so, subject to the clearance of the JCSI the following day.
The hon. Lady asked about a number of other subjects, including the cost of living, food banks and the living wage. I remind her that this Government have cut tax for more than 26 million people and frozen fuel duty for the rest of this Parliament. We have helped to freeze council tax for the fourth year running, when council tax doubled under the last Labour Government and energy bills increased hugely. Town hall charges doubled and fuel duty was increased 12 times, so when it comes to the cost of living, the Opposition have nothing to teach us.
The hon. Lady asked about the minimum wage. Government Members have long supported it, and if everybody is to apologise for past errors, we are waiting for some very big apologies from the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Lady will supply them on one or two of these occasions.
She asked about the article by my Parliamentary Private Secretary, which strongly supported the immigration policy of Her Majesty’s Government—she can be assured of that. I commend the shadow Leader of the House—I try to find some way to do so every week—for being so cheerful about the situation of her party. An examination of this morning’s media shows that their election guru is losing patience with Labour. The Opposition have had a reshuffle in order to forestall a coup—and things are getting pretty bad when that happens. The editor of the New Statesman, the only publication to support the Leader of the Opposition when he was elected, has now disowned him. One shadow Cabinet Minister said to the newspapers:
“Morale has never been lower”.
Another said that they were all “very concerned”. On the subject of real congratulations this week, however, we have a special guest appearance by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House for sheer honesty. Because he is not really allowed to speak at business questions, I will helpfully read out his words for him:
“The state that the Labour party is in right now is we are in a dreadful position. And we’ve got to be honest about ourselves…The electorate looks at us and has no idea what our polices are. We have a moribund party in Scotland…And we have a membership that is ageing and inactive.”
That is the hon. Gentleman’s own description of his own party—to which he assents, for he is nodding. It will take a lot more than a reshuffle to forestall the judgment of the voters on that party next May.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May we have an early debate on the costs of paying in-work benefits to foreigners? The Migration Advisory Committee said this week that the cost just of paying tax credits to foreigners is £5 billion a year. I tabled a question to the Department for Work and Pensions asking for more information, but so far I have received only a holding reply. I think this is an issue of increasing urgency, and I hope my right hon. Friend agrees with me.
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend will know, we have cracked down on the number of benefits to which European Union jobseekers can gain access. There is now a three-month delay before they can receive jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit or child tax credit, entitlement to housing benefit has been removed from them, and we have taken a number of other measures. The benefits bill is being reduced in that respect. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will receive a detailed reply to the question he tabled.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I wish to explore with my right hon. Friend the idea of going in tandem and at the same pace. As the owner of a tandem myself, may I challenge him to join me on my tandem and show how we can go forward without being dependent on each other?
Mr Hague
Without getting into the finer points of cycling, I can say that it is the Prime Minister’s view, as it is mine, that the proposals should proceed in tandem, meaning that just as Lord Smith will aim to produce cross-party agreement on Scotland by the end of November, so I will test to the full whether there is any cross-party agreement on these other issues by the same time.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I and others were on the Committee, and those were indeed the conclusions we came to.
As for the charter of fundamental rights—now reckoned to be within the framework of our own constitutional arrangements, although I do not have time to go into it now—the bottom line is that that would mean these matters being adjudicated by the European Court of Justice, which really would be a very dangerous situation.
Mr Chope
Does my hon. Friend recall that when Enoch Powell was a member of the Procedure Committee, he used to say that in the absence of a written constitution, the procedures of the House and our Standing Orders are our constitution, so to call for changes to the Standing Orders is not to call for them in any subordinate form of legislation, but in a very important form?
Sir William Cash
Absolutely. To his great credit, Tam Dalyell admitted that it was Enoch Powell who first raised the West Lothian question—that is a fact. It is an especially important point, because it is this House’s inherent power to regulate its own internal business on behalf of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) clearly stated, there are many differentiations already. I would like to say that it is not just a question of classes of Member; it is about the differentiation of legitimacy and democratic functions. That is the way I prefer to put it, because we perform different functions in different circumstances. It is not about creating two completely different classes.
I add that opinion polls indicate that 61% now strongly support the idea of English laws exclusively for English issues. I do not think there is any doubt about it. With respect, I was appalled at the speech of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who said almost nothing. When he did say something, it sounded as if it was based entirely on trying to avoid the issue at all costs.
When the Bill is introduced, it must specify its territorial extent if it is not to apply to the whole of the UK. If the Bill is silent on that, it will be presumed to apply to the UK as a whole. My amendment would effectively provide the power to declare the category of Member who would be voting, so that Members of the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament would know whether or not they were able to vote. It is also a convention that the Westminster Parliament does not legislate on devolved matters.
Finally, another idea that is floating around, which comes from the McKay proposals, is that a Standing Committee should consist of only English or only English and Welsh Members. Something similar has been happening under Standing Order No. 97 since 1948. My objection is that Second Reading, Report and Third Reading would still be considered by the whole House and that all MPs would vote. That would take us back to square one. I strongly urge the House not to go down that route.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I speak as a Conservative and as a Unionist, and as a graduate of the finest university in Scotland. Indeed, I was an undergraduate there at the time of the Perth declaration in 1968 and I recall the birth of Scottish nationalist campaigning at that time. I was on the other side of that argument, as I am today. However, the recent referendum has been brilliant for democracy. It has been liberating, and I hope that in due course the parties on the Opposition Benches will join us in saying, “Let’s have a referendum on the European Union.”
I am delighted that the people of Scotland have reaffirmed their support for our Union. The Command Paper published yesterday states, on page 16:
“Proposals to strengthen the Scottish Parliament provide an opportunity to reach a strong and lasting constitutional settlement across the UK.”
One means by which that could be achieved permanently would be to require that no part of the United Kingdom could become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom without a two-thirds majority voting in favour. Many of us were nervous about the prospect of changing our United Kingdom constitution on a bare majority, given that even the rules at the local golf club cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority.
The leader of the Conservative party has made two pledges on devolution. The first was made on 10 September, and that vow was made without the authority or agreement of Parliament. I highlighted that in Parliament, and it was also highlighted by Nicola Sturgeon in the yes campaign. She argued that the vow was dependent on parliamentary approval, which could not be guaranteed—in one of her speeches she even referred to me as being a reason for that—and therefore nobody should be relying on it. Yet now we find the SNP saying that the vow was solemn and influenced the result. Surely the yes campaign is prevented from now relying on what it described at the time as “salesman’s puff”, which it denounced and persuaded its supporters to regard as not being of any importance whatsoever.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
On having a two-thirds majority for constitutional change, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would require such a majority on a vote to leave the EU?
Mr Chope
No, I am not saying that. I would put the question round the other way and require a two-thirds majority for us to stay in the EU. What the hon. Lady seems not to understand is that the United Kingdom is a sovereign country with a sovereign Parliament and that the European Union is an alien structure that has been imposed upon us as a result of the referendum carried out some time ago. Many people who are now electors have not had the chance to vote on the issue.
If what the Conservative leader said then was a vow, it certainly cannot be relied upon by the Scottish nationalists because they opposed it and ridiculed it at the time. The second pledge was made in his capacity as Prime Minister on the steps of 10 Downing street at 7 am on 19 September. It is worth putting on the record exactly what he said:
“We have heard the voice of Scotland—and now the millions of voices of England must not go ignored…So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.”
Those words of the Prime Minister were more warmly received by my constituents and party supporters than any others he has offered us during the rest of this Parliament. That shows the extent to which he struck a chord with my constituents and, I believe, with the people of England. So there cannot be any going back on that commitment. I put my tandem challenge to the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will take it up, because how can the Prime Minister’s pledge on 19 September be delivered without constitutional change in Scotland being dependent on change being delivered in the rest of the United Kingdom? Indeed, that is exactly what the Chief Whip said in his article in The Times on 20 September.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman, having quoted what the Prime Minister said on the steps of 10 Downing street, has spoken in favour of increased devolution in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and he has also hinted at English votes for English laws—I believe he strongly supports that. I have no doubt that he is a committed Unionist, so how exactly does he think we keep the United Kingdom united?
Mr Chope
We keep the UK united by ensuring that we have a strong United Kingdom Parliament, in which we have a fair division of powers and responsibilities. All I can say to the hon. Lady is that my constituents are very concerned that in Scotland there is free long-term health care for the elderly, free prescriptions, no university tuition fees and £1,600 for each person, paid for by taxpayers from the rest of the United Kingdom. They do not think that that is fair, which is why those issues must be addressed at the same time as looking at a wider United Kingdom constitutional settlement.
Mr Chope
I will not give way again because many Members wish to contribute to the debate.
If, as is argued, people voted against independence but in favour of change, they voted for less power for Scotland’s MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament over Scottish affairs. If Scotland’s MPs are to have less power over legislation affecting Scotland, why should they keep their existing power over legislation affecting the rest of the United Kingdom? There are two options. One is to relieve Scottish MPs of any power to legislate on matters in the rest of the United Kingdom for which they have no power to legislate in Scotland. The second is to reduce the number of Scottish MPs to reflect their reduced responsibilities as a result of that devolution settlement in their own constituencies.
On the basis of what the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was saying, if Scotland is 8% of the United Kingdom there should be only 52 Scottish MPs in this House. If each of them has less responsibility because they do not have responsibility for all those matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there should be fewer of them because they have less work to do.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When will the Government’s response to the McKay commission report, which is over 18 months late, be produced, and will it be produced in time for tomorrow’s debate?
Mr Hague
I will seek to open tomorrow’s debate and much of what I will say will be updated following the events of the Scotland referendum and comprise the Government’s response to those issues. Given that the situation has changed considerably, even since the McKay report was produced, it would be right for us to take stock of opinion in the whole House and for us all to be able to express our views.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The right hon. and learned Lady puts it extremely well. We all want the best for Scotland, just as we all want the best for our own constituents, from all parts of the UK, in this House. The people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland believe that Scotland is better off in the UK and the UK is better off with Scotland in it. This referendum is the most important choice the people of Scotland will ever make: a choice between the opportunity and security of staying in the UK, and leaving for ever, without the pound and without the UK’s influence in the world. With Scotland as part of the UK, we have the best possible situation and a great future together in the United Kingdom.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Since 2012, my right hon. Friend and I have been supporting the policy of the Government not to offer so-called devo-max as a consolation prize in the event of a no vote in the Scottish referendum. If this is no longer the policy of the Government, when and why did it change, and what opportunity has there been for this House to express its view?
Mr Hague
It has been the policy of the Government for some time to be open to further devolution—I gave examples of what we have done in Wales, for instance, during the lifetime of this Government. The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign—not a statement of Government policy today, but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards. It is on that basis that they have made those statements.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I cannot promise a debate, but it is an issue about which she and colleagues might wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee, as debates on important health issues have been among the more successful of those it has been able to promote. I will speak to colleagues about responding directly to the hon. Lady on the issues she raises about the guidance.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
As I came 17th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, if I introduced a Bill to confirm that prisoners should not be allowed to vote, would it have Government support?
Mr Lansley
I wish my hon. Friend good luck in the private Member’s Bill process, but I will adhere to the convention that the Government respond with their view on such Bills on Second Reading.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I completely agree with the hon. Lady and endorse what she says. I am pleased that in this Session we have been able to allocate more time for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee than the Standing Orders required, just as we provided three more days for Opposition day debates than is required by the Standing Orders. The Clerk’s letter to Mr Speaker made clear the scrutiny that this House is undertaking, and the Backbench Business Committee’s progress in this Session has demonstrated an essential part of that enhanced scrutiny.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend, in the oodles of time available, make sure that there is a Government statement next week on holiday pay? Does he know that there is much concern among employers about the interaction between European Union law and British law? It is causing confusion and leading people to believe that holiday pay will have to be based not just on basic salaries, but overtime and additional work? This is a complex issue, but at the moment the Government do not seem to have a clear policy.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I may, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply to him, and if, as he says, there is widespread confusion on this issue, to let the House know what it can do to dispel that confusion.
Standards
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron). He has a heavy responsibility and burden in chairing the Committee, which he does with tremendous interest and dedication. He and others of us who serve on the Committee have to undertake that unnecessary but unpleasant responsibility.
In this case, it is awful that one of our colleagues fell so far below the standards that we hold dear. All I can say is that at least it is good that he made a fulsome apology and immediately resigned. I pay tribute to the Government for moving the writ for the by-election immediately, because that ensures that the constituents of Newark will be deprived of their Member of Parliament for the minimum possible length of time.
It is very good that the Committee now has the benefit of lay members—that has been misinterpreted in the press—because they have equal responsibility and participate in debates in Committee. If we counted the amount of time that each Committee member speaks, I suspect we would find that the lay members collectively talk for as much time as all the others put together. That is no criticism of the lay members; I am putting on the record the fact that they participate to the full in the Committee’s work. It has been suggested—because, for technical reasons, they do not have a vote on the final report—that they are somehow second-class members of the Committee, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is really desirable to have their reflections.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The lay members may not have a vote, but am I right to suggest that they can issue a minority report if they do not concur with the majority decision?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is right. That is an important point that should be emphasised. The lay members have not chosen to write a minority report on any of the decisions of the Standards Committee in which they have been involved since the Committee was set up and they became members of it.
The lay members and the other members of the Committee are considering the issue of sanctions, partly because if there is a long period of suspension, it is as much a punishment of the constituents as of the Member of Parliament. If the Member had not resigned in this case, the long period of suspension could have been regarded as counter-productive. We will consider those issues.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks that there is an interaction between this matter and the Government’s commitment to introduce a Bill on recall. I urge my right hon. Friend—indeed, I plead with him—not to bring forward such a Bill unless there is consensus in the House and it has the support of members of the Standards Committee. The draft Bill was heavily criticised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and members of the Standards Committee.
Bearing in mind that we are reaching the end of this Parliament, I think that it would be better, if we are going to deal with recall, to do so properly, rather than as a knee-jerk reaction. We must always be nervous about Members of this House intervening in the decisions of the electorate. There is a genuine question over whether the Standards Committee, with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ought to start making recommendations on recall. Is that really what we want? I am not sure that it is. If we are to have recall, we need to work out in advance exactly how it will be triggered.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will come forward with a further draft Bill or provide substantial pre-legislative scrutiny, because if we are to have a recall Bill, we must ensure that it serves the best interests of the public and the House, rather than being seen as a political gesture to appease people who are concerned, quite rightly, about the standards of conduct in public life.
House of Commons Business
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is free to make his own contribution to the debate. For my part, I hope I have explained what we intend to achieve through the motion. Colleagues will have had the opportunity to look at the debate in the House of Lords, and I hope that exactly the same was clear from the nature of that debate. The purpose is to ensure that we have, in both Houses, an understanding that we should not have mutually conflicting approaches to legislation. We should approach legislation in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) told us, we should have a way of recognising the application of parliamentary privilege to the proceedings of this House. We should also ensure that, in so far as we intend legislation to apply to this House and where it may have an impact on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, we put express provisions in the legislation to show, for Parliament’s purposes, what we believe the nature of those provisions and their application should be. That is what we are setting out to do.
On proposed new Standing Order No. 33, Members may recall, from the debate on the motion for an address in answer to the Queen’s Speech last May, that the current Standing Order does not provide absolute clarity on the number of amendments that may be selected on the final day of the debate. To be clear, a revised Standing Order is not an attempt to prevent you, Mr Speaker, from selecting an amendment, as you did on that occasion. It would not prevent you from doing that. As you will recall, you selected an amendment signed by Back Benchers on the omission from the Gracious Speech of an EU referendum Bill. That was, in fact, the second amendment selected, in line with normal practice. The third amendment selected, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, was the one beyond normal practice that would not, under previous practice, have been allowed.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that he put down a motion on the Order Paper last autumn to restrict Mr Speaker’s discretion to accepting only three amendments. I am glad, as the person who blocked that original motion, that he has had second thoughts and is now going to allow Mr Speaker to select up to four amendments. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he feels we need to inhibit Mr Speaker exercising his discretion in this matter?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend asks me to complete my speech, which, happily, is what I intend to do.
The interpretation of the Standing Order that allowed the selection of the third amendment on that final day leaves open the possibility of an unlimited number of amendments for separate debate. That introduces both an unwelcome element of uncertainty, in particular if Members were to table several amendments regretting the exclusion of their favourite Bill from the Queen’s Speech. I am not sure that Members or the Chair would want such a rich choice; nor do I think it was the intention of the Standing Order, when it was originally drafted, to permit votes.
What I am seeking, for the benefit of the House, is greater certainty. Members will want to know the maximum number of amendments that may be selected in order to judge whether to table one themselves. It is a matter of degree as to whether the total number of amendments selected should be limited to three or four. Do we want to spend more time debating or voting? The question in my mind originally was: what is the purpose of amendments, principally when the debate on the motion for an address is concerned? It is, essentially, an opportunity for competing views on the legislative programme as a whole to be debated. Therefore, my original preference is for what we had thought was the status quo—that is, three amendments under the Standing Order—but I am congenitally relaxed about the number being four.
Mr Lansley
Happily, I have had an opportunity to read the report of the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. As his Committee was sitting earlier this morning, he was not in his place for business questions, when I took an opportunity to refer to the report. His Committee pointed out that the certainty surrounding a fixed-term Parliament provides greater opportunity for the planning of legislation, with a greater understanding of how much legislative time will be available. When he hears the Queen’s Speech early next month, he will see that a substantial legislative programme is intended for the full Session. That will not prevent us from meeting our obligations under Standing Orders for Back-Bench debates, Opposition time and other requirements. Indeed, in this Session, we have exceeded them, so we are already providing time for precisely the things that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr Chope
Let me draw out my right hon. Friend further on whether he thinks it is a good idea that Back Benchers should be able collectively to table amendments in the Queen’s Speech debates. It obviously struck a chord with the people when that happened—on the issue of the EU referendum—during the last Queen’s Speech debates. Were there no coalition after the next election and three Opposition parties with reasonable representation, Mr Speaker might feel that his discretion had to be exercised in favour of those Opposition parties. It is possible that, even with four amendments, the opportunity for Back Benchers to put forward amendments in the hope of their being selected by Mr Speaker would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he thinks it is important that Back Benchers have such an opportunity? If, after the next election, there were more official Opposition parties, would he recommend returning to the issue to allow for more than four amendments?
Mr Lansley
I would say two things about that. First, it is open to the House to reconsider these issues in the future. The original drafting of Standing Order No. 33 was partly a product of the political and party composition of the House in the 1970s. One could consider circumstances in which the House might think it appropriate to expand the opportunities in future for parties, were there a multiplicity of them, to express their collective view on the legislative programme as a whole through amendments.
That brings me to my second point. At the outset of this part of the debate, I want to emphasise that the issue did not really arise in relation to the Back-Bench amendment last year, because it was selectable and selected on the basis of the previous interpretation of the Standing Orders. That was not the issue—the issue was the additional Plaid Cymru amendment. However, were we to go down the path of thinking that on each motion for an address, it would be appropriate to debate the inclusion or exclusion of individual Bills, that would posit the question whether the purpose of the motion for an address is something other than an expression about the legislative programme as a whole. Amendments designed for that purpose should relate to the whole legislative programme rather than to individual Bills.
I have expressed my view on Standing Order No. 33, and I hope that the House will support the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in that respect. There are a number of motions before us, and I hope the House will support the making of these changes, which I believe will be positive. Notwithstanding the fact that we will have a good debate about them, they were intended to be brought forward in a consensual spirit.
Ms Eagle
That is an important point. In this House, simply because the Government normally have a majority and because timetabling exists, there is the capacity for Bills pass through their stages fairly quickly. No such capacity exists in the other place, and the Government of the day are therefore tempted to try to get their Bills through this House as rapidly as possible and then fix them in the other House. That is a real problem when the other House is not democratic. I think that we must see what we can do to improve the capacity of this House to scrutinise legislation, albeit in the context of the generally accepted view that, in the British political system, the Government should be allowed to secure their legislation. The Opposition and other Members ought to be allowed to scrutinise Bills adequately as well, and it is with that balance that we are wrestling now.
Another issue that I raised in a letter to the Chair of the Procedure Committee about the proposed trial is the importance of giving Opposition parties enough time to respond to Government amendments when they are tabled. I know the Government say that they try to table amendments a week before the deadline, but that happens too infrequently. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us whether he would consider extending the trial and giving the Government a deadline perhaps a day before that given to other Members, so that opposition Members—be they small groups of Government Members, large groups of Government Members, or members of the Official Opposition—have a chance to respond to Government amendments in a sensible way.
The final motion proposes changes to Standing Order No. 33, which relates to amendments to the Queen’s Speech. To date, Mr Speaker, you have had discretion to decide which amendments will be called in the debate following the Queen’s Speech, which sets out the Government’s legislative programme for the parliamentary Session. The amendment to the Standing Order proposes to change that by limiting the number of amendments that you may call to four. That extends by one the number to which the Government were originally determined to limit you, and it represents a welcome Government climbdown in the face of a likely defeat. We naturally support it, with good grace and, perhaps, a little snigger.
I am sure that Members will recall last year’s Queen’s Speech, when nearly 100 Conservative Eurosceptic Back Benchers tabled an amendment to “respectfully regret” their own Government’s legislative programme, and 130 Members backed it in what was a humiliating blow to the Prime Minister’s authority. The amendment forced the Prime Minister to commit to legislating for a referendum in this Parliament on possible European Union treaty changes which have not yet even been talked about and which may or may not happen. This shows we have a Prime Minister who is more interested in managing his own unruly party than acting in Britain’s national interest, but it also demonstrates that his own Back Benchers are running scared of UKIP and do not believe a word he says on Europe.
In the light of last year’s debacle, it is no wonder the Government are so keen to limit the number of Queen’s Speech amendments and it is ironic that the threat of mutiny on their Back Benches, supported by the Opposition, is what forced the Leader of the House to concede that he should now perhaps agree with the Procedure Committee’s figure of four, rather than his original number of three.
Ms Eagle
I cannot recall the intricacies of what happened. The hon. Gentleman is always assiduous in these things, but I think there was somebody on the Labour Benches who objected at the same time. The hon. Gentleman has a very loud voice and has a lot more practice in objecting to these motions than almost anyone else in the House, which is why he probably got his objection in first.
I accept that the Leader of the House has now backed down on this, and because he has, we are happy to accept the motion before us today, which will limit, for now, the number of amendments to four. I listened with interest to the earlier debate about how that might change and I welcome the Leader of the House’s admission that if the composition of the House were to change or the circumstances of a future Parliament were different, Standing Order No. 33 may once again come under the microscope. At least he has accepted the inevitable and changed his motion, and because of that we are more than happy to support him should there be a vote today.
Business of the House (2 December)
Christopher Chope Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is good to have a reasonable slot in which to expand on the remarks that I was making just before 10 o’clock last night, and it is good to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is on the Front Bench and in a position to explain a bit of the background to the motion.
Mr Chope
Indeed: all the background.
The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to sit until as late as 11.30 pm on Monday, or even later, in order to consider two motions, one of which proposes to amend Standing Orders. I wanted to know why the Leader of the House had decided that the business should be debated so late on Monday, after a Second Reading debate on the important Mesothelioma Bill. Why could it not be debated at some other time? I believe that the motion proposing amendments to Standing Orders has been on the Order Paper for a long time, and I understand from contacts that I have had with my own Whip that the Government are concerned about the possibility that the House will divide at 10 pm on Monday. The business is highly contentious, which is why Members have been told that they will not be allowed to be “slipped”, or that slips that had been granted to them have been withdrawn. That suggests the Government regard it as highly contentious. If they do, it is all the more reason it should be given a primetime slot, rather than pushed towards midnight on Monday.
On a more serious point, the motion restricts the amount of time during which the two issues can be debated. It states that
“the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceeding on the Motion…relating to select committee statements and the Motion in the name of”
the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, including on amendments, shall be put
“not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings”.
That means that a maximum of three quarters of an hour is being given to each subject, including for the discussion of amendments and for votes on the first motion before the second motion is debated.
I am speaking now on the last item of business on a Tuesday afternoon before the Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), whose Adjournment debate it is, could therefore have an extended debate on the defence police and fire pensions review until 7.30 pm. I cannot understand why the business on 2 December is being so dealt with and why effectively we have to suspend Standing Orders and move this business motion. I am not normally of a suspicious disposition, but this raises various questions.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think it bizarre that this motion could be debated for longer than the 90 minutes allotted for the actual debate next week?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That depends on the debate staying in order. Its subjects are the length of the debate proposed—an hour and a half—and its timing, which, as Mr Chope has said, is next Monday.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am puzzled by my hon. Friend’s view that after 10 pm on Monday is not a good time for debating these issues. What on earth else would anybody rather do than come to the House and debate these important matters?
Mr Chope
I would be happy, as I am sure my hon. Friend would be too, to debate these issues until 1, 2 or 3 o’clock on Tuesday morning, should the need arise. That is why, as I said, the more serious of my concerns is the time limit rather than the timing. Obviously, he and I will participate in the debate at whatever time is set down, but we need to think about how easily people outside can follow our proceedings.
Mr Chope
That is a gross exaggeration of my position. I was suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that we should sit until we concluded the business, but that one advantage of having debates earlier—during primetime, as the Government would put it—is that they would be more likely to attract more interest from people scrutinising our affairs, who would not have to look at the historical record, but could watch it as it was happening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With respect, I would prefer the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not to answer that point. The purpose of the debate is to discuss only the date and the allocation of time. Nothing else is relevant to the specifics that we are dealing with.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am simply concerned that, at that late hour, some Members might be tempted to go to nightclubs and things like that. It would be distressing if we were to have the debate at a time when that might happen.
Mr Chope
I hope that when the debate takes place, it will be allowed a longer period of time than the motion currently provides for, and that it will have a similar spirit of good humour to the one that is prevailing in this short debate. I see no reason for extending this debate; I am making only a short point. Why does the Leader of the House need to close down debate on these issues and limit the discussion to 45 minutes on each of the two subjects, one of which has been the subject of a Government amendment to the motion tabled by the Procedure Committee? If we are going to encourage Members to participate to the full in the work of the Select Committees, including the Procedure Committee, the least we can do is allow proper time for colleagues to debate and question the proposals of those Committees.
I do not think that 45 minutes for each subject is sufficient, and I would be interested to hear why the Leader of the House thinks that those time limits are sufficient and appropriate, particularly as we have quite a lot of surplus time available now. I was talking to a journalist earlier, and he suggested that the business for next week seemed extremely light. I put these questions to the Leader of the House in a spirit of friendship. I know that, even though he does not always succeed, he tries hard to accommodate the needs of Back Benchers.
Mr Lansley
I think I have explained straightforwardly the judgment I have made, which is that the two motions relating to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in the House can be brought together perfectly sensibly. The latter motion, which I understand has the support of the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, would not detain us at any great length. From my point of view, in order to protect Government time, it is important for us to ensure that we have allowed these motions to be brought forward for the House to debate. I freely admit to the House that it has been difficult to find Government time. The Backbench Business Committee, as my hon. Friends will know, does not have the capacity to use its own time to bring forward its own motions relating to itself. [Interruption.] That is a separate debate, but the Committee does not have that capacity under the Standing Orders. For these motions to be debated, Government time has to be used, and so I have looked, along with my colleagues, to ensure that we find such an opportunity. That has been difficult and we have made the appropriate judgment in securing the possibility of time.
It is entirely a matter of speculation as to whether the Mesothelioma Bill will absorb all the time through to 10 pm. The assumption being made is that it will do so, and if it does, so be it. If we commence this debate after the moment of interruption, I do not want it to extend for a long period beyond 10 pm, although I am happy for the debate to go beyond 10 pm if necessary.
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend makes an important point—he says that he does not want the debate to go on for more than one and a half hours after the moment of interruption. Unfortunately, that is not what his motion says. His motion says that it cannot go on for more than one and a half hours after it starts. Perhaps he would be willing to withdraw this business motion and table an amended motion saying that we could have the maximum of one and a half hours after the moment of interruption.
Mr Lansley
I point out to my hon. Friend that I have said two things. I have said, first, that I do not think that the debate requires more time than one and a half hours, and it is Government time that we have found for the purpose. I have said, secondly, that I would not wish it to go for more than one and a half hours beyond the moment of interruption. It does not follow that I think it requires three hours—in any circumstances.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch questioned the need for the Standing Orders to be amended. He knows that this motion exempts the business from both the moment of interruption and the Standing Order relating to deferred Divisions, and he will understand that Standing Orders are amended regularly for such purposes. The motions for debate next Monday result from the work of the Procedure Committee, and it is right that the House is given the opportunity to resolve those issues.