EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have limited time, so I will have to impose a limit on speeches of seven minutes. I call Tom Brake.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The Government have wilfully plucked a figure out of the air, have manipulated the electoral register and taken 2.5 million people off it. The constituencies have no basis, so the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), Conservative Members wants to make a contribution, she can do so when I am not on my feet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot interrupt himself when making an intervention while referring to a sedentary comment from the Conservative Benches, but I will allow him to finish his perfectly reasonable intervention.

[Mr Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have gained further knowledge.

My hon. Friend’s Bill tries to address this issue. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) agree that this is not about gerrymandering or taking powers away from this House, but about restoring those powers?

Leaving the EU: Customs

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

My constituents would be aghast at the behaviour of the Labour party. I represent parts of the Wigan and Bolton boroughs, and those who live there would hardly believe that Labour Members are yet again trying to undermine the British people and give every advantage to the Brussels bureaucrats. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject subversive Labour and deliver an honest Brexit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

My goodness! That has never happened before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A great many people still wish to speak, and we have limited time, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes. I call Andrew Bowie.

National Security and Russia

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I made it very clear earlier in my speech what my position was, and I hope it is not the case that the hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have both sides of the House shouting at the Leader of the Opposition. He must be heard.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I hope the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) is not trying to divert us away from a discussion about oligarchs’ money in London and the need for a Magnitsky amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will give way when he decides to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We hope that that will make it easier for the Government to strengthen the resolve of our allies around the world to strengthen the co-ordinated response. To that end, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us later when she expects—[Interruption.] Well, then the Foreign Secretary will be in a position to reply to us, with his normal due diligence and care, about the results of the OPCW tests being undertaken at the moment. If he could give us the answer later on this evening, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has spoken, I would be very grateful. Does he agree that this attack serves as a stark reminder of how important it is to properly enforce the chemical weapons convention and to ensure that the OPCW has all the resources it needs, both political and financial, to do its job effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his usual helpful intervention—thank you very much. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Questions have been asked of him, and he will now answer them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Abuses of human rights anywhere in the world are wrong. On a delegation of all-party human rights group members to Moscow at the time of the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Russia, a whole group of us made it very clear, across party lines, what we thought about attacks on LGBT people, what was going on in Chechnya, and the denial of the right of civil assembly by people in Russia. I have continued to support such calls.

Where dialogue must take place for the protection of global security and the sake of the world is on the question of nuclear proliferation. Just three days before the attack in Salisbury, President Vladimir Putin gave an update boasting of his ability to strike at any part of the planet. We should not be about to mark the 50th anniversary of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty this June while its two key signatories, Russia and the United States, are behaving as though it no longer applies to them. It was a Labour Government who, in 1968, promoted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We urgently need the other signatories to that treaty, including the United Kingdom, to take a lead in insisting that Russia, the US and all other nuclear powers return to the negotiating table and to the principles that underpinned that very important treaty in 1968.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I hope the Prime Minister will take a lead on such a global initiative, which must happen—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman can choose from whom he wishes to take interventions; it is his business and no one else’s. However, it is my business to make sure he is heard—and he will be heard.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In case Conservative Members did not hear, let me repeat that I hope the Prime Minister will take a lead on the global initiative to get everyone back around the table, to give teeth and powers to the non-proliferation treaty, and to see what can be developed for the rest of the world. It is equally essential, however unpalatable it is in the current climate, that we maintain a robust dialogue with Russia on three other issues of crucial geopolitical importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are of course quite right that the Leader of the Opposition can decide to whom he will or will not give way, but how can he become the Prime Minister of this country if he is too frightened to take a single intervention from Conservative Members?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is certainly not a matter for me. I intend to make sure that this House and those who are paying attention to the proceedings in this Chamber can hear the important speech by the Leader of the Opposition, and we must now have some decorum to allow him to finish.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The second issue I want to raise is the nuclear deal with Iran, of which Russia is a signatory and, indeed, a strong supporter. At a time when it is more under threat than ever from those now in charge of Donald Trump’s foreign and security policy, we will need a united front to defend that very important deal with Iran, which was promoted by President Obama and others. Whether we like it or not, Russia must be part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not give way.

The third issue is, of course, the war in Syria, where Russia stands accused of supporting and committing war crimes in its backing for the Assad regime, in what is now the seventh year of that desperate war. It remains the inescapable truth that there can be no military solution in Syria, but an alternative political solution will never succeed without Russian agreement. Also included must be Iran, Turkey and the United States. All foreign forces will eventually have to be withdrawn to bring about peace in Syria. So, again, the international community does need an ongoing dialogue with the Russian Government if we are ever to achieve a political solution—a permanent peace for the Syrian people, hundreds of thousands of whom have lost their lives, so many of whom have been driven into exile, and so many of whom are living in desperate poverty and danger.

It was surprising that any democratic leader saw fit to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election. I hope the Prime Minister will show the same consistency this week by refusing to congratulate President Sisi of Egypt on his sham re-election to office. President Putin’s re-election has been preceded in the past year not just by the abuses that we have already discussed, and that the Russian state has committed or abetted overseas, but by blatant abuses at home as well. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of individuals punished for violating Russia’s regulation on public gatherings was two and a half times bigger in the first half of 2017 than in the whole of the preceding year.

However, for all the punishment beatings meted out to student activists, for all the horrendous state-approved homophobia against the LGBT community, and for all the intimidation and banning orders against political opponents, one central, inescapable fact remains: President Putin will be the Russian President for the next six years, and we cannot afford to pretend otherwise or to wish that away. On all the issues I have discussed—diffusing tensions on Russia’s borders; avoiding accidental conflict; preserving international agreements on climate change and Iran; reaffirming the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; securing a political solution in Syria; and even demanding the protection of human rights in Russia—we will have to engage with that Government and maintain what General Pavel of NATO called for: a constructive and robust dialogue, wherever that is required.

One area where that dialogue is immediately required with the Russian Government is regarding the protection, safety and security of the thousands of English football fans who will be travelling to the World cup this summer, as well as of the thousands of Arsenal fans travelling to next month’s CSKA Moscow match. What arrangements are in place for policing the leg to be played here, and what advice is there for fans travelling to Russia? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to answer those points when he speaks later this evening.

There are many in this House, including on the Benches behind me—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I could hear something that sounded like a whistle. That will not happen in this Chamber—[Interruption.] Order. It will not happen; I do not care what it was meant to be—it will not happen in this Chamber. We will now have some decorum and allow the right hon. Gentleman to finish his speech.

Overseas Electors Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami]

It has been estimated that probably more than 7 million people in this country are not registered to vote. Should we not be concentrating on them and making sure that they are on the register, rather than what we are talking about today—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has intervened several times. He must talk about the Bill, not about other matters.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s intervention was particularly about the capacity of local elections offices. Were the Bill to be successful, the impact on local elections offices in councils up and down the country would be huge, because the process of registering an overseas elector can take around two hours. If those offices were to see a huge increase in the number of overseas electors registering at a time when local councils have had huge funding cuts, the pressure would be absolutely huge.

There was further evidence in June about how under-resourced election staff are. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) described the issues on polling day as “a shambles”. Significant issues also occurred in Plymouth, with hundreds of voters unable to cast their votes in the June general election. An independent investigation found that 35,000 postal vote holders had received two polling cards—a postal vote polling card and a polling station card. In addition, 331 people who received a polling card that was issued on 5 May were removed from the register after that point.

These failings clearly illustrate that more action must be taken now to deal with the increasing challenges that returning officers face in delivering elections effectively. Those concerns have been raised on multiple occasions by the Association of Electoral Administrators, which has called on the Government for a

“full and thorough review of the funding of the delivery of electoral services…as a matter of urgency”.

Not only is that impacting on voters, but it might also be having a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of electoral administrators and the public servants who work in local elections offices. Following the 2017 general election, the Association of Electoral Administrators wrote that

“we have collectively been concerned for the health and well-being of…our members”.

As a result, the AEA contracted the Hospital and Medical Care Association to provide members with free-of-charge access to confidential counselling services. That is not an indication of healthy elections offices up and down the country.

In the context of austerity, we cannot allow the Government to dismantle our electoral system any further. The existing provision of checking registration against electoral registration officer records within 15 years is already a challenging and resource-intensive process. Some applications contain vague or incorrect previous addresses, which can cause problems in checking the register—so much so that the Association of Electoral Administrators has estimated that it takes roughly two hours to register one overseas elector. Because overseas electors fall off the register after 12 months, the vast majority of registration applications occur immediately ahead of a general election, when the pressure on electoral administrators is at its most intense.

Abolishing the 15-year rule, and therefore presumably increasing the number of British citizens overseas who can register to vote, would completely overstretch electoral administrators, who are already being pushed to the limit. In addition, the requirement to keep copies of previous revisions of registers for more than 15 years, whether in data or in paper format, will have a resource implication in the form of increased ICT server capacity or physical storage area.

In the light of those concerns—

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we appear to have passed the point at which it would have been possible to consider the next Bill, I want the House to know that there will be a public demonstration outside in which democracy will work, and we will have a debate on the cruel effects of the present law on young children and those in serious health difficulties, including a young boy who is suffering, and whose parents are suffering, in a terrible way. What has happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party, and I am ashamed to say that I am a member of that party—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a point of order about his Bill—although he knows that it was not a point of order—because I appreciated that he had a point to make, and I allowed him to make it. However, I will not take from him criticism of the Chair through the use of the word “filibuster”.

[Cat Smith]

Let me return to the Bill. I want to ask the Government three questions. Have they any indication of how many of the estimated 5 million Britons living abroad would apply to be overseas electors in the run-up to a UK parliamentary election or national referendum if the 15-year rule were removed? How do they intend to fund EROs for the additional costs incurred by these proposals? What steps will they take to ensure that election teams have the resources and the capacity to manage the increased volume of electors?

The devil is also in the detail, which the Government have failed to provide. According to the Bill, an overseas voter will qualify as a resident if

“the person has at some time in the past been entered in an electoral register in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency”.

However, many questions remain unanswered.

If an overseas elector was registered at a previous address but then moved to a different address before leaving the UK where they did not register, at which address should they register to vote? As time goes by, potentially over several decades, it could be very difficult for EROs to check previous revisions of registers owing to ever-changing localities. Problems include local government reorganisation, polling district and ward boundary reviews, the demolition or redevelopment of properties, street renaming, house renumbering, and limited availability of local authority records. Can we seriously expect someone who has not lived in this country for 40 years to remember the exact date on which they were last registered to vote, and the precise address at which they lived? I think not.

I also question whether the current deadline to apply to register as an overseas elector and make absent voting arrangements is sufficient, in the context of abolition of the 15-year rule. The Association of Electoral Administrators has urged the Government to consider bringing forward the voter registration deadline for overseas electors to allow sufficient time to process and check previous revisions of registers. What steps will the Government take to address those concerns?

Not only is the likelihood of error extremely high, but we are leaving our democracy wide open to potential fraudulent activity. In response to the Cabinet Office policy statement about overseas voters, the Association of Electoral Administrators warned that scrapping the 15-year rule would increase the potential for electoral fraud. Under the Government’s proposals, applicants who cannot provide a national insurance number or UK passport could have their identity verified by another registered overseas elector using an attestation. That would be a signed written statement from another British citizen who was registered to vote in the UK. Can we honestly expect this to be sufficient security to prevent fraudulent applications? When the attester as well as the applicant live abroad, what is the likelihood of a false declaration resulting in prosecution proceedings? My guess is, very low.

There is also no way of checking whether an overseas voter is living at the stated address abroad. Overseas voters who owned and lived in more than one home could register more than once and we would have no way of knowing whether people were registered multiple times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36)

Question put.

A Division was called; Dame Cheryl Gillan and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being appointed Tellers for the Noes, the Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I will, unusually, delay for a moment to see whether the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who was in the Chamber until just a few minutes ago, is in the vicinity. I make it clear to the House that I am not creating a precedent in so doing, but I am aware that the hon. Gentleman was in a wheelchair and it might therefore take him a little longer to reach the Chamber.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice? It is obvious that there was an enormous weight of opinion in favour of the Bill that has just gone through on Second Reading, but some Members—particularly those on the other side—sought to shout against the Bill but then failed to put in Tellers. Will you advise me on whether that is good practice in this House? Surely, when a body of people shouts no, Tellers would normally be put in position by those Members shouting no.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady makes, but it is perfectly proper for those who oppose a Bill not to put in tellers and not to see the matter through to a Division. It is not a question of whether that is bad or good practice; the practice is in order, and that is my consideration.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am aware that it is up to the Minister whether he gives way, but would it not be courteous to the House if he actually indicated that he was not going to take any interventions, because he just seems to be reading his speech—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is not a point of order, and I am not going to spend any time on it because a lot of people want to speak. There is no more courteous a Minister in this place than this Minister.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given way a number of times already, and I want to make some progress. I certainly intend to give way again, but I am conscious that we have finite time available for the debate, and the time taken up by taking interventions is speaking time taken away from Back Benchers.

Network Rail judged in this case that Carillion was best placed to do the work, because it had been engaged on the project for three years already and had completed all the design work successfully. By agreement with the official receiver, former Carillion employees and suppliers continue to work on these rail projects, and today they are progressing as planned.

Since the liquidation on 15 January, the Government have responded promptly and appropriately, supporting the official receiver to manage the liquidation. We have also made funds available to allow an orderly wind-down of the company’s affairs. It is worth my explaining that this company was in such trouble that it could not even fund its own administration. If the Government had not stepped in and agreed to cover the costs of the official receiver, there would have been a real threat to public services in schools, hospitals and prisons. Staff would not have come to work last Monday, as they would not have been paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The practical advice I would give is to go to the website operated by special managers on behalf of the official receiver. There are links for the various categories of people affected, so those SMEs should follow the one for suppliers or subcontractors for advice and frequently asked questions. If they have specific concerns there is an email link to make direct contact with the special managers. That is the best way forward, because every case is slightly different.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but there has been some consternation about the taking of interventions. The Minister has been quite generous in doing so. Twenty people wish to speak in the debate. There is an hour and 31 and a half minutes left. Members will also wish to hear the winding-up speeches. Some people have been sitting patiently in the Chamber all afternoon. The prospective limit on speeches at the moment is three minutes, but it is likely to go down, and some people will not have an opportunity to speak at all, so let us allow the Minister to say what he has to say.

[Mr Lidington]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to make progress.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will provide practical advice and guidance to those affected through its Business Payment Support Service. That may include help such as agreeing instalment arrangements, suspending any debt collection proceedings and reducing payments on account.

I should say a brief word about the concerns of members of Carillion’s defined-benefit pension schemes who, understandably, are seriously worried at this time. Existing pensioners will continue to receive their pensions at agreed levels, but the significant funding deficit in Carillion funds will mean that some future pensioners will see their pensions reduced. At present, seven Carillon schemes, covering 6,000 members, have moved to the Pension Protection Fund assessment period, which occurs automatically when a sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. The remaining 21,000 members are in schemes that have at least one sponsor not in insolvency and are therefore not in the PPF. When a scheme moves into the PPF, the worst-case scenario is that the fund ensures that all pensions in payment continue to be paid at 100% of their value, and people who have benefits in such schemes for the future will receive those benefits at 90%, at least, of their expected value, subject to an overall ceiling on the amount that any individual can receive from a pension.

The Prime Minister restated on Sunday that the Government will shortly consult on tough new rules to tackle the behaviour of executives who try to line their own pockets by putting their workers’ pensions at risk—behaviour that she rightly labelled

“an unacceptable abuse that we will end”.

The official receiver has also taken immediate action to stop severance and bonus payments to former Carillion directors.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Insolvency Service and the official receiver asking that their statutory investigation into the conduct of Carillion’s directors is fast-tracked and extended in scope to include previous directors. He has also asked the Financial Reporting Council to conduct an investigation into the preparation of Carillion’s accounts past and present as well as the conduct of the company’s auditors. I can assure the House that no payments have been made to board directors or the former directors who had severance agreements since the date of liquidation. Directors with such severance agreements became unsecured creditors from the moment of liquidation.

Finally, in his opening remarks the hon. Member for Hemsworth touched—probably more than touched—on the overall questions about the outsourcing policy of this and other Governments. It is worth pointing out that outsourcing, whether in construction or the provision of services, is something that successive Governments—Labour, coalition or Conservative—have been doing since the 1990s. The services provided to the public sector by private companies include IT, back-office services, facilities management and other business services, such as running call centres. In many cases, those services have now been delivered by private sector companies for 10 or 20 years, and many have built up specialist expertise, skilled staff and investment to deliver public sector contracts.

This is a matter not just of cost, but of quality and innovation. If we look at a project such as Crossrail—the largest infrastructure project in Europe—that railway will open on time and on budget later this year. To deliver that project on time and within budget, Network Rail and Transport for London work with a huge range of private sector companies—including Costain, BAM Nuttall, Balfour Beatty, Morgan Sindall and others—and use their specialist expertise, which is something, frankly, that civil servants are not trained to have.

I could list a long catalogue of examples of such successful use of private sector companies to deliver capital investment into our hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure and successfully to deliver the provision of public services in all aspects of the public sector. What I found to be such a pity about the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was that he resorted to ideology, instead of looking at the people—our constituents—who actually use the services and who benefit from the better value for money and innovative quality that private sector contractors are able to bring, and have brought successfully, to that work.

Not only that, but in an enchanting display, the hon. Gentleman disavowed his party’s entire history of 13 years in government. Let us not forget that the majority of outsourcing in the NHS took place under the Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, as part of an initiative that was championed, in particular, by the current Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Let us look at what the Labour party has said since it left office. The shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary praised Carillion as an example of “good public procurement practice”, and the shadow Foreign Secretary praised it for offering apprenticeships to her constituents. The shadow Housing Secretary has said that PFI helps to deliver better and more cost-effective public services, and the shadow International Trade Secretary described it as

“a staggering investment in the future of…children and…excellence”.—[Official Report, 15 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 308.]

The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary said PFI provided “good value for money”. [Hon. Members: “When?”] It is very interesting that Labour Members feel they have to conform with the new dear leadership that the hon. Member for Hemsworth wanted to celebrate, but they should have the courage of the convictions they expressed when in office and since about the value of a proper constructive partnership between the public and private sectors in the interests of the constituents we are sent here to represent.

The shadow Health Secretary says that NHS experts accept that only a “handful” of PFI contracts are causing hospital trusts a significant problem. Labour council leaders in Manchester, Birmingham and Hounslow have praised public-private partnerships for delivering growth and urban regeneration in their areas. For all the denunciations of Carillion, one third of the contracts that the state sector still had with it at the time of its liquidation were awarded by the Labour Governments of the early 2000s—Labour Governments in which the hon. Member for Hemsworth served as Gordon Brown’s right-hand man in No. 10 when that outsourcing work was at its zenith.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the public sector continues to benefit from the best of private sector innovation and skills. We do not put ideology first; we put the service user and the citizen first. That is the policy that the Government are committed to and which we intend to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is now a time limit of three minutes.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 65—Role of Joint Ministerial Committee—

“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to be a forum—

(a) for discussing—

(i) the terms upon which the United Kingdom is to withdraw from the European Union and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;

(ii) proposals to amend retained EU law;

(iii) agreed legal and policy frameworks in relation to the subject matter of devolved retained EU law that are to operate throughout the United Kingdom;

(iv) a concordat setting out the process for concluding the legal and policy frameworks mentioned in sub-paragraph (iii); and

(b) for seeking a consensus on those matters between Her Majesty’s Government and the other members of the Joint Ministerial Committee.

(2) Before Her Majesty’s Government concludes a withdrawal agreement, the Secretary of State must produce a document for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—

(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in negotiating and concluding a withdrawal agreement;

(b) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in relation to establishing a framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;

(c) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to keep the Joint Ministerial Committee informed of progress in reaching a withdrawal agreement;

(d) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to consult each member of the Joint Ministerial Committee before entering into a withdrawal agreement and for taking the views of each member into account;

(e) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to seek the approval of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly before entering into a withdrawal agreement.

(3) Until a withdrawal agreement is concluded, the Secretary of State must produce a report every three months for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—

(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the progress made against Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives—

(i) in negotiating and concluding the withdrawal agreement;

(ii) in relation to establishing a framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;

(b) any change to the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2).

(4) Before concluding a withdrawal agreement the Prime Minister must produce a document setting out the terms of the proposed agreement for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee.

(5) Meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee must, until Her Majesty’s Government concludes a withdrawal agreement, be chaired by—

(a) the Prime Minister, or

(b) the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

(6) In this section, “the Joint Ministerial Committee” means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution, between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”

This new clause would put the Joint Ministerial Committee’s role in the withdrawal process on a statutory footing.

Amendment 42, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.

(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.

(3) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act (no competency for the Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law, omit ‘is incompatible with EU law’.”

This amendment removes the Bill’s proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on devolved matters.

Amendment 164, page 7, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.

(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.”

This amendment would replace the Bill’s changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in consequence of EU withdrawal, by removing the restriction on legislative competence relating to EU law and ensuring that no further restriction relating to retained EU law is imposed.

Amendment 132, page 7, line 19, leave out from “law)” to end of line 29 and insert

“omit ‘or with EU law’”.

This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the Scottish Parliament legislating inconsistently with EU law after exit day.

Amendment 90, page 7, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—

“‘(4A) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.’”

This amendment would remove the restrictions on the Scottish Parliament modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved.

Amendment 133, page 7, line 33, leave out from “law)” to end of line 7 on page 8 and insert

“omit ‘or with EU law’”.

This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the National Assembly for Wales legislating inconsistently with EU law.

Amendment 91, page 7, leave out from beginning of line 36 to the end of line 7 on page 8 and insert—

“‘(8) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.’”

This amendment would remove the restrictions on the National Assembly for Wales modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved.

Amendment 134, page 8, line 9, leave out from “Assembly)” to end of line 28 and insert “omit subsection 2(d)”.

This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the Northern Ireland Assembly legislating inconsistently with EU law.

Amendment 92, page 8, leave out lines 14 to 28 and insert—

“‘(6) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedules 2 or 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’”

This amendment would remove the restrictions on the Northern Ireland Assembly modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved or excepted.

Amendment 72, page 8, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) This section shall not come into effect until—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (1);

(b) the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (2); and

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (3).”

Amendment 337, page 8, line 33, at end insert—

“(6) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall not come into force until the exit day appointed for the purpose of this section, which must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”

This amendment, alongside Amendment 42 and NC64, would establish that the UK Government has until the end of transitional arrangements to create any UK-wide frameworks.

Clause 11 stand part.

Amendment 165, in schedule 3, page 25, line 37, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert—

“1 In section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no power for members of the Scottish Government to make subordinate legislation, or otherwise act, incompatibly with EU law or Convention rights), omit ‘or with EU law’.

2 In the Government of Wales Act 2006, omit section 80 (EU law).”

This amendment would replace the Bill’s changes to the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers in consequence of withdrawal from the EU, by removing the restriction on competence relating to EU law and ensuring that no further restriction relating to retained EU law is imposed.

Amendment 183, page 28, line 2, leave out from first “and” to end of line 3.

This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would change a heading in the Scotland Act 1998 to remove a reference to retained EU law.

Amendment 184, page 28, line 38, leave out from “(d)” to end of line 39 and insert

“omit ‘or with EU law’”.

This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would change the definition of devolution issues in the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 185, page 29, line 5, leave out paragraph 21.

This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would enable changes to the procedure for subordinate legislation in the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 186, page 29, line 28, leave out from “subsection” to end of line 29 and insert “(4), omit paragraph (d)”.

This amendment makes a change consequential on Amendment 165, which would omit section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, making section 58A (4)(d) of that Act redundant.

Amendment 187, page 30, line 4, leave out

“before ‘EU’ insert ‘Retained’”

and insert “omit ‘EU law’”.

Amendment 165 omits section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. This amendment would amend the changes made to the heading before section 80 to reflect the omission of section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

Amendment 188, page 30, line 5, leave out paragraph 31.

This amendment makes a change consequential on Amendment 165, which would omit section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, making paragraph 31 of Schedule 3 in this Bill redundant.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 177, in schedule 2, page 19, line 47, leave out “and retained EU law”.

This is a consequential amendment linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

Amendment 178, page 20, line 23, leave out “and retained EU law”.

This is a consequential amendment linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3..

Amendment 179, page 23, line 21, leave out “and retained EU law”.

This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

Amendment 180, page 23, line 25, leave out

“and section 57(4) and (5) of that Act”.

This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

Amendment 181, page 23, line 31, leave out “and retained EU law”.

This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

Amendment 182, page 23, line 35, leave out “80(8)” and insert “80”.

This consequential amendment, linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, changes the reference to section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 to make clear that the restriction on the powers of the Welsh Ministers not to act or legislate incompatibly with EU law is removed.

Amendment 189, in schedule 8, page 50, line 19, leave out

“section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or”.

This amendment and Amendment 190 are in consequence of Amendment 165 as no restriction relating to retained EU law on the making of subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers would apply.

Amendment 190, page 51, line 1, leave out

“section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or”.

This amendment and Amendment 189 are in consequence of Amendment 165 to Schedule 3 as no restriction relating to retained EU law on the making of subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers will apply.

Amendment 191, page 55, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert—

(a) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraph (ii), and

(b) in paragraph (b), omit “or with EU law”.”.

This amendment would amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 on the right of the Advocate General to take part in proceedings in consequence of removing the restriction on the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government by Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

Amendment 192, page 59, leave out lines 10 to 16.

This amendment, with Amendments 193, 194 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 193, page 59, leave out lines 23 to 29.

This amendment, with Amendments 192, 194 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 194, page 59, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 60.

This amendment, with Amendments 192, 193 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 195, page 60, leave out lines 13 to 23.

This amendment, with Amendments 192, 193 and 194, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

[Jenny Chapman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mrs Laing. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, as well as to amendments 42 and 337, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

New clause 64 would establish a collaborative procedure for the creation of UK-wide frameworks. It would require that the Secretary of State must lay before each House proposals for replacing European frameworks with UK ones. We need those frameworks to enable the functioning of the UK internal market; to ensure compliance with international obligations; to ensure the UK can negotiate and enter into international treaties, or, if we leave the customs union, trade agreements; to enable the management of common resources; to administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; and to safeguard the security of the UK. The frameworks will have a significant impact on the carefully constructed devolution settlements in the Union. They must be created in collaboration with the devolved Administrations.

The birth of devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was a significant change to the running of the United Kingdom. The then Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, battled to extract powers from Whitehall mandarins, who attempted to cling on to them. Then, as now, the default position of Whitehall is to hold on to power whenever possible. There are those who believe that this pro-Whitehall centralising tendency, on display yet again in clause 11, is evidence of the Tories’ reluctance to engage with devolved Administrations, or, even worse, that it signals a persistence of their initial opposition to devolution as a point of principle.

I am pleased to say that I am not one of those people. I believe we have come a long way since 1997, thanks in large part to the persistence of Donald Dewar and others. I sense that the Government’s decision to withhold retained EU powers in Whitehall is not an anti-devolution stance, but instead one of the clearest indications yet that the Government are just not coping with the task of Brexit. The Government simply have not had the ministerial headspace—or, as Alan Milburn said, the bandwidth—to engage with the consequences of Brexit for the established, yet still young, devolution settlements now in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I would be delighted to explain, but I probably will not be able to today. It is a lovely idea, and I would be more than happy to spend 20 minutes or so on it, but—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the Committee that at this point. We will stick to the matter in hand for the moment.

[David T. C. Davies]

Let me return to the matter in hand for a minute, because the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) was also there for the underwhelming vote for devolution in 1999, and she will surely recall that the Conservative party did not call for a second referendum. We did not threaten to drag the whole thing through the courts to get the judges to overrule the will of the people of Wales. We were not going around pretending that people had changed their minds and saying that we needed to run the whole thing over again. We did not say that we were going to drag the whole thing out and do everything possible to undermine it. In actual fact, Nick Bourne, who was then the leader of the Welsh Conservatives and is now a Member of the other place, sat down with Members of all parties on the National Assembly advisory group and helped to draw up the Assembly’s Standing Orders, most of which are now in place. That is the difference between the Conservative party’s approach when we were on the losing side of a referendum and the approach of the Labour party, the SNP and many others now that they are on the losing side.

The reality is that the change will be called a power grab. I did not hear the phrase used today, but it will be described as a power grab. Of course it is a power grab, and what a wonderful power grab it is, too. We are grabbing powers from Brussels and bringing them back to London. Not only that, but over the next few years—[Interruption.] SNP Members can shout all they like; I am waiting for one of them to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows what I am going to say: I am not going to trample over anyone—well hardly anyone—this afternoon. I would be grateful if he addressed the Government as the Government.

[Ian Blackford]

My sincere apologies, Mrs Laing. You are right to reprimand me, and I apologise. I am talking about the powers that the Government are taking back—the naked power grab that is taking place against the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Order!

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am always grateful for the help of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Thank you very much. Mr Masterton must have a chance to answer the point made by Ms Cherry before we have any further interventions, although there will probably be another one in a moment.

[Paul Masterton]

Again, I draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to the fact that I said that most of the 111 powers are technical and regulatory. They cover areas either where divergence in policy between UK and Scottish Government Ministers would not be a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market, or where consistency could be maintained through non-legislative options. Those powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament on exit day, or as close to it as can safely and realistically be achieved.

In respect of those powers where there is a legitimate UK interest in uniformity across the UK—that is, where divergence between the nations of the UK would be contrary to the UK’s interests—it would be unsafe to allow them to be devolved without providing for constraints on how they may be used. It is in those cases that we will need common frameworks, a concept accepted as necessary by UK, Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Aspects of agriculture and fisheries are among the examples where it has been accepted that there will be a need for common frameworks.

As confirmed to the Scottish Affairs Committee by the Secretary of State for Scotland, if the frameworks are to be acceptable to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, they will have to be negotiated and agreed, not imposed top down by the UK Government. That suggestion is fairly straightforward. Each of the 111 powers will either fall to be wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or the UK will step into the shoes of the EU, replacing an EU-wide framework with a new UK-wide framework, for which administrative competence will largely rest with the Scottish Parliament.

Although we will not seek to amend clause 11 at this stage, we will, in exchange for supporting the Government on amendments 164 and 165, require confirmation from Ministers that they will expedite discussions with the Scottish Government further. We seek quick progress, looking ahead to the next JMC (EN) in December and into January, and in any event certainly before the debate on Report.

My focus at this stage is very much on the framework negotiations running parallel to this debate, but I ask that the UK Government give me the assurances I seek that they will move forward urgently through the JMC (EN) with, first, identifying and agreeing areas where there is a need for legislative common frameworks; secondly, recognising that the other powers can be devolved immediately on EU exit, including as many of those where non-legislative solutions on maintaining consensus have been agreed; and thirdly, settling how the common frameworks will be agreed. I expect an assurance on the first two issues to be given by the debate on Report, and if the third has not been given by then, I expect clear and significant progress to have been made.

In time, clause 11 will need to be replaced to reflect that, but I recognise that its final form will be linked to the points I have listed, so I do not ask for, or expect, that change to be made now. Looking ahead, once agreement is reached on where frameworks are needed and how they will be agreed, I believe that clause 11 should include a draft default setting, so that the power would be held by UK Ministers until a common framework is agreed. Crucially, however, that default setting could apply only in areas where it was established that there should be a common framework and the mechanisms to reach agreement on a framework have failed.

A lot of work needs to happen between now and then, primarily on moving the frameworks on through the JMC (EN). That is why my focus will stay on that for now. I say again, however, that my vote against amendments 164 and 165 tonight is conditional and must not be taken as support for clause 11 as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has said:

“I am surprised and disappointed that the British government now appears not to be in a position to conclude what was agreed earlier”—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might be making an interesting point, but it is not directly relevant to the new clause.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mrs Laing. If I may, I will respond to what the Taoiseach said just by saying I am surprised that he is disappointed, but not surprised that he is surprised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister who has apparently been briefing Conservative Members has just appeared in the Chamber? Perhaps he could give us some answers about what has been going on in Brussels today.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. No he cannot. We are discussing new clauses and amendments to the Bill, not what people are seeing on Twitter. If the Prime Minister has anything to report to the House, I am sure that she will come at the earliest opportunity to give such a report.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Laing. I apologise to the Committee for digressing, but these are incredibly important matters—and actually they are directly connected to my amendments, because they about keeping the devolved Administrations informed and involved in the process.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said he was seeking reassurances. What we have seen since lunch time should give him cause for concern that no assurances will be forthcoming, which is why we must put in the Bill the requirement that the Government keep the devolved Administrations properly informed. This is about not just the devolved Administrations, but the people they represent.

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have plenty of time for this debate. A lot of people wish to take part in it, and I should tell the House that I have had notifications from several new Members wishing to make their maiden speeches. I would like to manage without a formal time limit; especially for the benefit of those making their maiden speech, it is much better not to have a time limit. We can manage that if people, showing some self-restraint and some thought for their fellow Members, speak for about nine minutes. That means calculating on the basis of 10 minutes and then stopping a bit earlier. It is amazing how difficult people find it to do the arithmetic once they are on their feet, but I will try to help them. If we keep to about nine minutes, everyone will have an opportunity to speak without a formal time limit, and I know that I can rely on Mr Clive Betts to do this perfectly.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

I have a family who suffered. He should give way. It’s a disgrace—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) is not giving way.

[Roger Mullin]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to compliment one speech that I heard today, and it is that of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). In his usual understated way, he made some of the most telling observations about why we should still care about what happened and about the need to learn the lessons. I cannot see how it can be argued that we can learn the lessons if we are unwilling critically to review the results of the Chilcot process.

I was critical when my constituency predecessor in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath set up the inquiry—as I am critical now—that it was not a judge-led inquiry. I have also been critical in the House about Sir John Chilcot’s decision to invoke the Maxwellisation process, because he was not required to do so. That process allowed those who were criticised in the report to be the only ones to be given notice of what was being said about them and the only ones allowed to introduce new evidence into the process. For those reasons alone, this House needs to review and make its own judgment about the evidence. For me and many hon. Members from whom I have heard today, it is most telling that people recognise that the most important thing about the Chilcot report is not his personal views or interpretation, but the evidence that was presented, which this House is required to review.

I for one have confidence in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, particularly in its Chairman, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), whom we are asking to take this forward. If there is any reason at all for why we need further consideration by the Committee, it was given by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) when reporting some of his conversations with Sir John Chilcot in the Liaison Committee. He asked a question about Mr Blair and if I quote him correctly, Sir John’s response was:

“You would have to ask him.”

How does this House ask him without asking him?

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people still wish to speak and that there is not very much time left. I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.