Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I confess that I neglected to answer the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House about the better care fund. There is no need for a statement because there has been no slippage in the better care fund. It is to be introduced from April 2015 and it was always anticipated that at this stage Ministers would receive submissions from local authorities together with their clinical commissioning groups on how they propose to use that fund for local plans. In that sense, nothing has changed. As far as the foundation trusts are concerned, it is important to recognise that Monitor is the regulator. If I may, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman’s question to the attention of Monitor’s chief executive and seek a reply about South Tees hospitals.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on honesty in sentencing? My Bury North constituents will be astonished and dismayed that anyone such as the convicted armed robber known as the “Skullcracker”, who had been given not just one but 13 life sentences, was being prepared for release in an open prison despite having absconded twice before and committed dozens more armed robberies while at large.
Standards
David Nuttall 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
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I always worry about iconoclasm. There have been certain ages in our history when it has played an interesting role. Perhaps Members should embark on a tour immediately to explain to people out there how important these concepts are to the health of our democracy. I think we all agree on that, but we need to translate it into phrases that can be easily understood by those who do not have a degree in constitutional law.
As I have said, we are more than happy to support the general view that the Government have now reached, after much work. They have sensibly declined to introduce a codification of parliamentary privilege, and have provided helpful clarifications. However, I have one further question to ask before I leave the issue of privilege. The Joint Committee suggested in its report that the Government should repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which might more accurately have been named “the Hamilton amendment”. It was disgracefully inserted by the last Conservative Government to facilitate the issuing of a libel action in the “cash for questions” scandal by the then Conservative Member of Parliament, now UKIP fundraiser, Neil Hamilton, allowing him to waive privilege in order to sue The Guardian. The Joint Committee observed that that had created indefensible anomalies which should not be allowed to continue, and I agree. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Deputy Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to repeal section 13 through the Deregulation Bill, which is due to be debated in the House on Wednesday.
The third motion relates to a proposed trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to Bills on Report. I welcome the suggested earlier deadline, and agree that it is important to ensure that we have enough time to draft a detailed supplementary programme motion that will enable us to debate all the groups of amendments. During the current Parliament, too much legislation has been passed without the House having had an adequate chance to debate it. The Government have also got into the habit of dropping controversial changes to their Bills into the legislative stages in the Lords, thereby avoiding effective scrutiny in the Commons.
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is perhaps the most egregious example of that wholly regrettable practice. It was inserted into a Bill at the last minute during its House of Lords stages. The Bill then returned to the Commons, but our amendments were effectively talked out. We were able to debate the board’s abolition in the Chamber on an Opposition day, but by then the legislation had already been passed.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that during the final eight parliamentary Sessions under the last Labour Government, 16 groups of amendments were not reached on Report? That is made clear in the appendix to the third report of the Procedure Committee.
Ms Eagle
I am not trying to suggest that the issue rests solely with the current Government. In fact, it has arisen because of the issue of timetabling itself. I am long enough in the tooth to have been in the House before there was any timetabling, although there were guillotines, which could not be applied until a Bill had been debated for three hours. That system had advantages and disadvantages. Programming also has advantages and disadvantages, but I think that, if we are to have it, we must try to ensure that games are not played, and it is not possible for swathes of Bills to be passed without debate because the end of the timetable has been reached.
There is always tension between the time that is allowed for a Bill to pass through its stages and the tactical game-playing in which Oppositions, Governments or large groups of Back Benchers—or, indeed, small groups—may engage in order to have a particular effect on a Bill. I think it important for us to try to ensure that groups of amendments have at least a reasonable chance of being debated.
Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I saw the Service Complaints Commissioner’s report. It is important that we further strengthen the role of the commissioner and raise awareness of all the issues to which she refers. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to respond, but I assure her that I know, from my conversations with colleagues, that these issues are taken very seriously.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on the use of public money in murder cases, so that the House can consider whether it is appropriate for legal aid to be spent on paying for an appeal by one of the murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby? The public are rightly outraged by this and believe the money would be better spent on providing a fitting memorial for Fusilier Rigby.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes his own point. What happened in Woolwich last year was a sickening and barbaric attack. Our thoughts remain with the family of the victim and with the community. They are grieving for someone they love. They have lost a brave soldier. On legal aid, my hon. Friend will know that legal aid is available for all criminal cases in the Court of Appeal. However, a judge has to grant leave to appeal and the court can also grant legal aid.
Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I did not see that programme, so I cannot comment directly on what the hon. Gentleman alleges. My recollection is that the Treasury Committee is continuing to undertake an inquiry into the Co-operative bank. It is not for me to refer such matters, but he might like to refer any information he has to that Committee.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I add to the call that was made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for a debate on the UK’s set position in the European Union? Next Tuesday will see the announcement of the winner of the €100,000 “Brexit” prize, which is organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs. We have seen debates on the television and in the think-tanks. It seems bizarre to the public that this House is not debating what life would be like for the UK outside the EU. We should have an urgent debate before the European elections.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend asks for a debate before the European elections, but it seems to me that the European elections are about who we send to the European Parliament. The debate between now and the European parliamentary elections should be about sending Conservative Members of the European Parliament, as we have in the past and will again in the future, who will go there and fight for British interests, vote against measures that are not in this country’s interests and promote competitiveness and deregulation in the European Union. That is what the European parliamentary election is about. At the same time, we might have a further opportunity in the course of the next Session in this House to debate through a private Member’s Bill how the people of this country can have their say in a referendum. That is a critical issue in getting such a debate to happen.
Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I think we all agree that it is important that recorded crime statistics are as robust as they possibly can be. One of the first things we did when we came into office was to transfer responsibility to an independent Office for National Statistics. It is doing its job, and that is a reflection of an important step that the coalition Government took. The Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to carry out an audit in June of the quality of crime recording in every police force, and only last week she wrote to chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. It is worth noting that the separate and wholly independent crime survey for England and Wales, endorsed again yesterday by the ONS, also shows a more than 10% reduction in crime over the same period from 2010. Crime now stands at its lowest level since that survey began in 1981. The evidence is clear that police reform is working and crime is falling.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on the 2014 index of economic freedom, prepared by the Heritage Foundation, so that the House can explore why the UK is placed 14th on the list and why not a single other EU country is categorised as free, whereas countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada are categorised as economically free?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but he raises an interesting point. I know the Heritage Foundation and the importance of some of the research that it undertakes. The 1.2 million additional jobs created in this country since 2010 are evidence that illustrates to Europe the positive impacts associated with greater economic freedom. That is something that can be understood and appreciated across Europe.
Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), responded to an urgent question yesterday and did so very well. As he said to the House, the information on the local government finance settlement was distributed in a way that is consistent with previous years. In fact, laying it by means of a written ministerial statement is exactly the same process as was adopted by the previous Government in the last year before the election.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Given the ongoing need to raise funds for the public purse, may we have a statement setting out the reasons why the Government think it is still necessary to own Channel 4?
Amendment of Standing Orders
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Walker
In an ideal world, the Standing Order would be amended to ensure—so that there was no wriggle room—that the additional days would be provided, but at this point I do not feel that the House is with me. This is an argument in gestation, and we need to allow it longer in the womb before it bursts forth in its full glory.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of our Procedure Committee. Does he agree that if the Government were to accept the motion—and I appreciate that they are reluctant to do so—there would be no reason for the Backbench Business Committee, in its present or a future incarnation, not to refuse to accept the extra day if it were offered, on a case-by-case basis?
Mr Walker
The Backbench Business Committee is known for its independence of thought. I rather agree with my hon. Friend, who is a stalwart of the Procedure Committee and one of its leading lights. Once again, he has made an incisive contribution.
Because we do not have all night, I am now going to make a little progress. We also propose a new Standing Order—again, resisted by the Government—allowing the Backbench Business Committee to organise its own time through a motion proposed at the commencement of one of its days of business, regulating the business that follows. Such a change would enable the Committee to make provision for decisions on a series of motions and amendments to those motions to be taken together at the end of a debate, at the normal moment of interruption or before.
I shall canter through the next part of my speech. I shall have to read it, because it is quite complex, and I would not want to make a deliberate or unnecessary mistake. Let me give two examples in which that power might have been useful. In the case of recent debates on the sitting hours of the House, the need to take a complex series of votes before the usual time of interruption required the sacrifice of an hour and a half of debating time. The debate on assisted dying, which was scheduled to last an hour and a half, had to be voluntarily stopped 20 minutes early so that the first amendment could be put and voted on, in order to allow a second vote to be taken before the 7 pm deadline. The power might also provide for a timetable for decisions to be made on a series of separate motions at fixed points, or for a day simply to be divided between two or three debates. That would be entirely convenient to the House because it would make everything reasonably predictable.
In anticipation of resistance from the Government, the Committee has proposed a fairly formidable set of constraints on the use of the power, which I shall set out now. I can see that the House is waiting with bated breath to hear about this series of protections.
First, the decision to use the power must be a unanimous decision by the Committee, made, obviously, at a quorate meeting with due notice given. Secondly, the Committee— unlike the Government—is given no power to stretch a day, except in so far as Divisions might run past the normal moment of interruption. It cannot extend the length of a sitting on Thursday. Thirdly, and most importantly, the House would be free to disagree with any proposal made by the Committee at the start of the day to which it applied. The proposal would be put without debate, but could be divided on and defeated. If the House did not like it, the House could reject it.
So there is no possibility, in a perfect world—the world that I would like to see become a reality, although it is not going to become a reality tonight—of the Backbench Business Committee’s abusing its power to force the House to make unpalatable decisions in an unpalatable way. The whole Committee, and the whole House, must want the business to which this power might be applied to be conducted in a rational and predictable way. It is not applicable to anything other than Back-Bench business: it cannot affect Government business, Opposition business, or private Members’ Bills.
I appreciate that there is resistance to this. There are many here who feel that the Government, motivated by good will, would want to ensure whenever possible that the Backbench Business Committee was able to achieve its objectives, and that there would be helpful Whips supporting them in the process. This is where I diverge slightly from the view of my opposite number, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee. This is a point of principle and the—slow—direction of travel at the moment is for this House to take back more powers for itself. It was the case about 110 years ago that if the Government of the day wanted to transact their business in this place, they had to come and seek our permission. Over the past 110 years we have given up successive powers through Standing Orders so now we are in the position of begging the Government for time, or relying on the good will of Government to give us that time.
This is what I suggest: I am not going to press the House to a Division tonight, so the amendments put down by the Government will carry the day, but I am convinced that the day is coming—slowly—when this House will have the courage and desire to take back some of its own power and we will have the self-confidence not to rely on the Whips to transact our business for us on those days when it is our business. I accept that there will be Government days for business, and that is fine, but I think that on those days when there is Back-Bench business—those days when it is our business, when this place comes back to us—in a few years’ time we will have the self-confidence and courage to say, “Actually, we can handle our own affairs in a grown-up, mature and successful fashion.”
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I do not intend to go through the motions again, because the House has already heard about them in detail, but I want to place on record that it was not the intention of the Procedure Committee to fall out in any way with the Backbench Business Committee. If the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) does not mind my saying so, we were only trying to be helpful. In many ways, it is a sadness and a disappointment that our attempt to be helpful has resulted in a debate that might appear to an onlooker to be a dispute between the two Committees. That certainly was not the intention of the Procedure Committee and, to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I am sure that with his two hats on he would have made it clear if he thought that we were going down the wrong track. These are permissive powers, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's arguments and they have some merit. If at any point in the future the hon. Lady and her Committee feel that the Procedure Committee can be helpful by introducing some changes, I for one would be amenable to suggesting that we gave that request careful consideration.
I have just listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and to his concerns about the proposed new Standing Order on Select Committee statements. I am inclined to agree that paragraph (1)(a) suggests that the Backbench Business Committee would have the authority to demand a statement and I wonder whether, even at this late stage, we might receive from the Leader of the House an oral clarification or even a manuscript amendment with which the whole House could agree that would put the words “if requested” after the words “may determine” in line 4. That might deal with that concern.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering raised a concern about paragraph (4), which states:
“The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”
When I read that the first time, I wondered whether it meant that there would be no vote on the statement as no question would be put to the House. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect that the sensible convention that has grown up under your chairmanship and since I have been a Member of this House, Mr Speaker, that as many Members as possible given the circumstances are allowed to question a Minister—or, in this case, the Chairman of a Select Committee—after a statement has been made should continue if at all possible.
Business of the House (2 December)
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Business of the House
David Nuttall Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I was not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was going with that. We will of course have an opportunity to debate the finances of this place. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to talk about savage cuts. In order to reduce the deficit, we have as a matter of necessity to reduce the costs of administration, and we are doing so in this place in the same way as is being done in other public services. I am not sure whether those in the other place would take kindly to the way in which the hon. Gentleman expressed himself. They have done a lot of work on the Care Bill and we are looking forward to seeing that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) which, if passed, would allow Members in another place not simply to have leave of absence, which they do at present, but to retire.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the statement in the House yesterday from the Secretary of State for Defence that this House will be given an annual opportunity to consider our reserve forces. May we please have a statement on whether it is the Government’s intention that this annual debate should be in Government time or whether it will be diverted to the Backbench Business Committee?
Mr Lansley
I did indeed hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I recalled him making it clear that there would be an annual report to the House. I do not think he made a specific commitment as to how that report would be received by the House and debated, but I will discuss that collectively and through the usual channels, as usually happens.