Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am happy to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Sir Kevin Barron.

House of Commons Commission (External Members)

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

The House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 requires that there should be two external members of the Commission. These external members are recommended by the Commission but agreed by a resolution of the House. The House of Commons Commission agreed the terms of this motion on 25 June, and the House now has an opportunity to approve the terms today. Dame Janet Gaymer has given exceptional service to the House of Commons Commission, and we should extend our sincere thanks to her.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Jane McCall for her service to the House to date and to wish her success if the extension of her term is approved. I would finally like to thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for her work on the selection panel. I know that Dr Rima Makarem comes highly recommended, and I wish her success if her appointment is approved. I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

[Hon. Members]

Aye!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Of the contrary no.

[John Spellar]

No!

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

You’re a voice crying in the wilderness, John.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the record, I did note one voice calling “No”—not in the wilderness, but quite clearly—but very many voices calling “Aye”, so the Ayes have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do not want to be taken off the central point that I was making, Madam Deputy Speaker, much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a very narrow debate and we must keep to that.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was responding to the intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I do not want to be taken off the point.

It is proper that the Government have that role of financial initiation. It is also clear that there is a convention that the Government will bring forward a money resolution, but it has not been an invariable convention. There have been a number of examples—the Leader of the House set them out—where Ministers have not brought forward money resolutions. I was intrigued by the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on a European Union referendum was not given a money resolution despite the fact that the then Prime Minister was very keen on doing so. There have been plenty of examples of private Members’ Bills not being given money resolutions.

I repeat what the Leader of the House said, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)—that the Government simply want to wait for the Boundary Commission’s report. One of my hon. Friends, I think, asked whether it could report earlier. It cannot do that because the primary legislation means that it can report only between September and October of this year, and that is what it is going to do. Given that we have been having boundary commissioners look at the parliamentary boundaries since, in effect, 2011, I do not think it is unreasonable that we allow one of those reviews to reach completion and allow this House to make a decision before we then consider what to do. The position that the Leader of the House has set out is not unreasonable. I think the central thrust is absolutely right.

I wanted briefly to touch on some of the points that were made in the debate, before you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not dwell on them at length because they touched on the substance of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). The first is about the timing of his proposed review and about the members of the public who are not on the electoral registers under the arrangement that the current boundary review is considering. That sounds superficially like an attractive point. However, detailed analysis of the changes in the registers between the start of that review and a review that he would like to trigger showed that the distribution of voters across the country was fairly consistent, and so there would not actually be a significant impact on the distribution of constituencies across the country.

To Members who find that a huge point, I simply reiterate that the general election last year was carried out with boundaries that were drawn based on electoral registers that date from 2000, which was a point strongly made by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). If they are worried about voters who were not on the electoral register in the last couple of years, they should surely be concerned that the current boundaries do not take into account voters who have gone on to the register in the last 18 years. That is a much bigger injustice. Allowing the current review to continue and this House to take a view on it is much the best thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Therein lies the problem. Clearly, there are a number of Conservative Back Benchers who will not vote for the current Boundary Commission recommendations, which I will get on to in a minute, and the Government are not confident about getting them through. Not tabling a money resolution to the private Member’s Bill is a new blocking technique. They do not want to test the will of the House because of their fragile majority—or rather lack of a majority; I do not think they could have carried the Democratic Unionists at that stage. What are the Government afraid of? They should bring the resolution before the House and let it decide.

In terms of the argument that the Bill will somehow be a waste of £8 million, I am taking no lectures from the Government. I remember the coalition Government flipping and changing over whether we should have cats and traps on aircraft carriers, for example, which cost the taxpayer £100 million. There was the decision to renationalise the east coast main line last week; the rebranding of the trains alone is going to cost £13 million. The argument is complete nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) summed it up very well when he said that the Government would not be wasting money because what will happen, if they lose on this matter, is that they will pick up the Bill as a way of enacting the new boundaries.

May I turn briefly to the new boundaries? I believe in the equalisation of constituencies, which is fair and a part of our democratic process. It is important to have confidence in that, and to keep the link, which is unique in our system, between individual Members and their constituencies and communities. The gerrymandering that was done by the Cameron Government in reducing the number of MPs to 600 has led to the Boundary Commission—and I do feel sorry for it—being given an impossible task. We only have to look at some of the recommendations that have been put forward for the shape of constituencies, with communities put together that have no connection whatsoever. For example, there is one in the north-east that would win a geography prize and, given its odd shape, would clearly not be out of place in Texas in the United States.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him. There has been a technical problem with the clock, and the number of minutes apparently left to him is not the number of minutes he has left. He has taken two interventions, so I will add on two minutes of injury time, but I would be very grateful if he did the House the courtesy of finishing at 7.33 pm.

[Mr Jones]

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, brevity is my style; I will certainly do what you request.

A fundamental part of our democracy in this country is the link between the constituency and the community, but that has been thrown out completely in this process. I do not blame the Boundary Commission for that; I blame the coalition Government. Let us remember that there was a coalition, and the Liberal Democrats signed up as well.

There has also been the argument that the cost of democracy will somehow be reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) asked how many peers David Cameron created. He created 198 in six years, and I understand that the cost of that is an additional £22 million a year.

Baby Leave for Members of Parliament

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, and I wish you a happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will not give you the bumps.

My right hon. and learned Friend talked about her own experiences, and she was very fortunate to have our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) by her side. She also talked about pairing. In personal life, not everyone is paired. I speak as chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families. Is she aware of the figures from Gingerbread that point out that single-parent families are an increasingly common family form? The figure is 51% in some London constituencies, and there are 3,649 in mine. These problems are exacerbated for single parents. Will she encourage people to join my APPG, which was registered only this week?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Lady responds to the intervention, I should add that I have no wish whatsoever to curtail this excellent debate on a very important subject. However, I draw to her attention that while she is absolutely correct to take lots of interventions, because there is much to be said about this, I have a note of a great many people who wish to speak, and we do not have a huge amount of time.

[Ms Harman]

I will draw my comments to a close.

In this centenary year, 100 years after women first won the right to stand for Parliament, I hope that we will agree to the motion and that the Procedure Committee will look at the matter expeditiously. We do not have all the time in the world. At least two more parliamentary babies are in the pipeline. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is awaiting her second baby, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) is also expecting. While we talk, nature is taking its course, so let us agree this and get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The debate has to finish just before 3 o’clock, so we will have a time limit of about eight minutes. Sorry, not “about”; the debate has to finish at about 3 o’clock, and the time limit is exactly eight minutes. I had in my mind the terror that I felt the day I told the Chief Whip that I was going to have a baby—something that had happened only once before in the Conservative party. It was causing palpitations again. I call Emma Reynolds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must reduce the speaking time limit to seven minutes.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her statement and for letting me have sight of it, albeit late last night.

As the Leader of the House indicated, the working party has met. There are many issues to deal with, but we hope to have an outcome before the House rises for Christmas. The Labour party is working with all other parties to ensure that there is a robust process that everyone is signed up to, and that there will be due process. The shadow Minister for Women and Equalities is working hard to include everyone and is having many conversations too. We should also note that complaints are sub judice while they are going through the system and that nothing should be done to compromise further action, should it need to be taken. The process should also cover everyone who works on the estate, including contractors—it should form part of their contracts in the tendering process—and those seconded for a year from universities.

I want to mention a few steps that could be taken immediately. The Respect policy, on which House staff have worked for a long time and to which many have signed up, should be rolled out immediately to everyone working on the estate. We should respect the fact that people have taken a long time to refine the policy. Sometimes Members need a point of contact, but complainants and those complained about need professional advice, and complaints need to be reported immediately, so I am pleased to hear from the Leader of the House that the helpline has been rolled out to everyone working on the estate.

We should immediately put in place an independent specialist sexual abuse adviser, as the Leader of the Opposition has called for. That might be a matter for the Commission or the Government, but either way that clearly could be put in place now. I also suggest that the working party has a website and a point of contact so that anyone can make a contribution, including anonymously. Education and training could start now.

All parties’ procedures have been looked at, refined and improved, and the Labour party will continue to look at its procedures. The Leader of the Opposition has made our position clear in a letter to the Prime Minister. I will read it out now, just in case she has not received it, as she mentioned at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time that she might not have received some correspondence:

“In the case of the Labour party, these procedures and safeguards were strengthened by our national executive committee in July. We are now appointing an independent external organisation for reporting complaints and to guide and support anyone affected by sexual harassment through the party’s procedures. We have also appointed an independent legal expert, who will make recommendations as to how those procedures could be further strengthened. We have communicated these procedures to the party at every level in the week.”

I know that other political parties are also working on their policies.

We all want a robust process that has the confidence of everyone, but only when it is tested will we know whether it is robust enough so that everyone can work safely in this amazing place for the good of our constituents and the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Mr Bernard Jenkin.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her statement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I was much too quick in calling him; I have not given the Leader of the House an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I do beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). We are both delighted that Mr Speaker arranged today for confirmation to be sent to staff in both Houses that the existing complaints helpline has been rolled out not just to House of Commons staff, but to staff in the other place, and, in addition, that face-to-face counselling will be available on the parliamentary estate from Monday 20 November. An email has been sent to all staff giving specific details of how to express a complaint, how to receive counselling and signposting, and so on. That is very important, and I am as pleased about it as the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady mentioned the discussion in the working group about the provision of an independent sexual abuse expert to guide and advise that group, and we are seeking to ensure that someone will be available in time for our next meeting. She suggested the very good idea of a website for contributions, which we will certainly consider, but in the meantime, as I said, those who wish to provide written contributions should feel free to do so. I am sure that both the hon. Lady and I would welcome any emails of that kind.

Although the issue of education and training is not within the working party’s specific terms of reference, we will be discussing it further. We will be listening to thoughts from IPSA, among others, about what sort of training and HR support can be provided.

The hon. Lady referred to party policies and said that the Labour party has updated its party procedures. I gather that all parties have done likewise, and that those party policies have been made available on the parliamentary website. I look to you to correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am wrong and the information is not yet available, but I understand that that is the intention.

The hon. Lady observed that the system would only really be proven once it had been tested—of course she is right. I am sure that considering how we can review it after it has been operating for a little while will form part of the working party’s final work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Mr Bernard Jenkin!

[Mr Jenkin]

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for also making a mistake.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I agree that whatever needs to be done urgently must be done urgently to address the present situation, but as we graft more and more new bits on to current systems, will we not be in danger of adding to the confusion that already exists? The Public Affairs and Constitutional Administration Committee, which I chair, has submitted evidence to the review of our present code of conduct, which is being conducted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Much of the current problem arises from confusion about an inadequacy in the code.

As my right hon. Friend develops her proposals, will she agree that whatever is put in place now, there needs to be a comprehensive assessment in the longer term—perhaps by a special Select Committee such as the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was formed during the last Parliament—of what is being introduced and how it should integrate with IPSA, the Standards and Privileges Committees and so on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s work on this matter and her statement this morning, but part of the difficulty, especially over the past few weeks, lies with discerning the difference between the serious cases that must, should and can be dealt with and the spurious, fictitious and plain wrong allegations that must be weeded out and that, quite frankly, detract from the other serious cases. I have two specific questions. First, the Leader of the House mentioned fairness, including fairness to Members. Is it not a matter of fairness and natural justice—this affects parties on both sides of the House—that a Member who has received an allegation against them should know the basis of the allegation? Secondly, does she agree that any grievance and complaints procedure must be truly independent of any one political party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the sake of clarity, I have allowed the hon. Gentleman two questions on this occasion, but one question is sufficient on an occasion such as this.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the spurious, wrong, malicious and appalling accusations that have been made against some Members, causing considerable upset and hurt. Right across the House, we have concern for those in public life who are accused unfairly. On natural justice and fairness, I agree that every attempt to consider allegations against particular Members or members of staff must be treated in a completely fair and, as far as possible, transparent way. He asks for equal treatment across all parties and for all members of staff, and I completely agree with that principle. The working party will certainly seek to ensure that we have an equal, transparent and fair grievance system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and raises an important point. When a complaint has been made, something has already failed. The working party hopes that the creation a new system of complaints will by its very existence change the culture in this place. I reiterate that we do have examples of good employers and teams that work extremely well right across the parliamentary estate. Many MPs, peers, chiefs of staff, and senior parliamentary assistants are very good employers and treat their staff with the utmost respect. Nevertheless, he is right to point out that we need to change the culture. By providing proper support for employment matters, which is the intention of the working party, by offering proper training to those who employ staff, and by creating a proper grievance procedure, I hope and expect that we will also change the culture and significantly reduce the number of complaints that need to be made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The last word is left to Rupa Huq.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am encouraged to hear that the new system will apply to all 4,000 workers who keep the parliamentary estate going, many of whom are my constituents. There is deep concern among the tour guides that sweeping changes to their terms and conditions, which they feel are being foisted upon them, will rationalise many of them out of existence. Will the Leader of the House assure me that none of those who are dedicated to this vital work of the House will lose their jobs? Will she also meet PCS, MAPSA and Unite to allay those concerns?

Nomination of Members to Committees

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to motion 5 on the nomination of Members to Committees, which will be debated together with motion 6. Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment to motion 5 in the name of Mr Alistair Carmichael. The amendment will be debated together with the main motions, and questions necessary to dispose of the motions will be put at the end of the debate.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move motion 5, on the nomination of Members to Committees,

That notwithstanding the practice of the House in the nomination of Members to committees, the following orders shall have effect for the duration of the present Parliament:

A: SELECTION COMMITTEE

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be known as the Selection Committee, to discharge the functions of nomination to committees provided for in the Standing Orders of the House relating to public business and to carry out the functions set out in or by virtue of the provisions of this order.

(2) The Committee shall consist of nine Members, of whom three shall be a quorum.

(3) Mr Alan Campbell, David Evennett, Patrick Grady, Andrew Griffiths, Jessica Morden, Christopher Pincher, Julian Smith, Mark Tami and Bill Wiggin shall be members of the Committee.

(4) The Committee appointed under this order shall be regarded as the Committee of Selection for the purposes of motions for nomination of select committees under 15 paragraph(2)(b)(ii) of Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees).

(5) The Committee shall have the power of nomination to and discharge from general committees provided for in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees).

(6) The Committee shall observe the conditions on nominations of public bill committees on a private Member’s bill set out in Standing Order No. 84A (Public bill committees).

(7) The Committee shall have the power to nominate members to European Committees in Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees).

(8) The Committee shall have the power of nomination and discharge of members as provided for in Standing Order No. 92 (Consideration on report of certain bills by a general committee), Standing Order No. 102 (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and 25 business)), Standing Order No. 109 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)) and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee).

(9) The Committee shall have the power of appointment provided for in, or by virtue of, paragraph (8)(a) of Standing Order No. 83J (Certification of bills etc. as relating exclusively to England or England and Wales and being within devolved legislative 30 competence), paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 83P (Certification of instruments) and paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 83U (Certification of motions upon which a Finance Bill is to be brought in, etc.) of two members of the Panel of Chairs to assist the Speaker in certifications.

(10) The Committee shall have powers to send for persons, papers and records in the 35 execution of its duties.

(11) The provisions of Private Business Standing Orders shall apply to the Committee established under this order as if the Committee were the Committee of Selection established under Standing Order 109 of those Standing Orders; and each reference to the Committee of Selection in those Standing Orders shall be taken as a reference to the Committee established under this order.

B. SELECTION COMMITTEE (NOMINATION TO GENERAL COMMITTEES)

The Selection Committee shall interpret paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) in such a way that where a committee has an odd number of members the Government shall have a majority, and where a committee has an even number of members the number of Government and Opposition members shall be equal; but this instruction shall not apply to the nomination of any public bill committee to which the proviso in sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph applies.

C: POSITIONS FOR WHICH ADDITIONAL SALARIES ARE PAYABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OFSECTION 4A(2) OF THE PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS ACT 2009

The Chair of the committee established under part A of this order shall, for the period that part A of this order has effect, be a position specified for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, subject to paragraphs (2) to (4) of the resolution of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of Section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) which apply as if that position were referred to in paragraph (1)(a) of that resolution; and, for that period, the chair of the Committee of Selection shall not be a position so specified.

D: NOMINATION OF PROGRAMMING COMMITTEES

The Speaker shall interpret paragraph (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) in such a way that the number of Government and Opposition members nominated to each such committee shall be equal.

E: NOMINATION OF PROGRAMMING SUB-COMMITTEES

The Speaker shall interpret paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees) in such a way that the Government shall have a majority of the 65 members nominated to each such committee.

F: NOMINATION OF REASONS COMMITTEES

That, unless the House otherwise orders, the Government shall have a majority of the members nominated to each committee to draw up reasons.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment (a) to motion 5, leave out part B.

Motion 6—Standing Orders etc. (Departmental Nomenclature) (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)—

That the following changes to Standing Orders be made:

A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments

(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), in item 3, by inserting “Digital,” before “Culture, Media and Sport” in each place it occurs.

B. European Committees

(2) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by inserting “Digital,” before “Culture, Media and Sport”.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government are determined to fulfil their constitutional rights and obligations towards the people of the United Kingdom. We are getting on with the task set for us by voters, honouring the result of both the EU referendum and the general election. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is my understanding that Members are anxious to take part in this debate and to listen to the arguments. I cannot understand, therefore, why there is so much other conversation going on in here. If Members wish to speak, will they leave the Chamber?

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

No, I will not give way.

The Government did not even try to make it work. The Opposition’s names are very reasonable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and even the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) are all very reasonable Members. I know that they would be pleased to sit down with the Government and work out a reasonable solution that would be in keeping with the constitutional position and the democratic will of the country—[Interruption.] This shows everybody that Government Members do not want to listen to the argument. They just want to interrupt—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Lady does not wish to give way, she does not have to give way.

[Valerie Vaz]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not appreciate being shouted at across the Chamber by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tomorrow we have a debate in Westminster Hall about involving women in politics. The shadow Leader of the House’s remark about a female Member of the House was unacceptable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady and the House will fully understand—[Interruption.] Order. The House must at least be quiet while I am speaking. The content of the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is entirely up to her. I sometimes wish that I could comment on what people wear in the Chamber—many will be glad that I am not allowed so to do. The hon. Lady decides the content of her own speech, and I will not intervene in any way.

[Valerie Vaz]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not dignify that point of order with further comment.

The motion is based on neither precedent, nor Standing Orders, nor the constitution nor democracy, so I ask again: why is it necessary? This is a Government by convention, not majority, and I urge hon. Members, for the sake of parliamentary democracy, to vote against the motion and to take back our sovereignty.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am not afraid to cross swords with my Government. I have been the Chairman of that Committee for five years, and we have had several run-ins. For the record, I will go through them. We had a run-in over amendments to the Queen’s Speech and the bouncing of Parliament over the election of the Speaker—a particularly raw moment in my political career. We had the impenetrable and unnecessary complexity of English votes for English laws—although the Committee made excellent suggestions, they fell on deaf ears, as the Government chose to ignore them. We have had the Government’s belligerence regarding the reform of private Members’ Bills, but I shall continue in my efforts to reform that bit of nonsense. Most recently, Opposition Members will remember that I stood up and berated the Government for not giving Opposition days in a timely fashion to Her Majesty’s Opposition. I said that the Government were being ungenerous and that they should be generous.

I am, therefore, no friend of the Government Front Bench. I trash them and I lash them—thwack, thwack, thwack—on a regular basis. [Laughter.] Have I broken with parliamentary convention, Madam Deputy Speaker? If I have, let us put it before the Procedure Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is being wonderfully dramatic; that is perfectly within parliamentary convention.

[Mr Walker]

Politics is show business for ugly people, and I am a frustrated actor.

Try as I might, however, I cannot work myself up into a lather about this. I would love to be furious with the Government—I really would—but I cannot be. I get angry very quickly and blow up, and I make some spectacular apologies, but I cannot get too wound up about this.

If the House will indulge me, may I go back in time and revisit the 1970s? From March 1974 until April 1979, the Wilson Government, despite being a minority Administration at times, had a majority on the Committee of Selection for all but three months of their five years in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next person to speak, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this evening—I have indications from more than 20—and we have one hour of debate left. I hope Members will act in a courteous fashion and keep their speeches short.

Business of the House

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the week commencing 4 September.

Monday 4 September—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 5 September—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill.

Wednesday 6 September—Motion to approve ways and means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.

Thursday 7 September—Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 1).

Friday 8 September—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 11 September will include:

Monday 11 September—Conclusion of Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 2).

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 September will be:

Thursday 7 September—Debate on the transparency of the BBC followed by a debate on 16-19 education funding.

I congratulate all Members from across the House who presented their private Member’s Bills yesterday. I know that many of them are on subjects that Members care deeply about, and I wish them well. I can confirm that, through the usual channels, the Opposition have been offered an Opposition day in the short September sitting, and we also plan to provide further Opposition days in October and November.

Finally, as this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I send my best wishes to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and colleagues across the House for a productive, and also a restorative, summer break from Parliament? I also thank the hard-working staff of the House, whose efforts in supporting us are greatly appreciated by colleagues on both sides of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure the whole House will join the Leader of the House in thanking the hard-working staff who look after us so well and wish them a restful time over the summer without us.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I am afraid I have not been informed of any Opposition day—not even a careless whisper. Let me make it clear again: the Opposition had to call a debate on Monday because there was no discussion with the Government on our right to have those Opposition days. The Government need not have had that debate; they could have said, “Yes, have your Opposition day on Monday.”

This is a Government struggling to get a grip. Back Benchers are calling for the sacking of the “donkey Ministers”, with Tory grandees describing them as ferrets in a sack. The EU knows that the current Government are without authority, with the Prime Minister having to call for calm. Is this the image of the country that we want to present to the world?

The Conservatives do not want to debate major policy issues; they would rather discuss the leadership crisis than debate or appoint to their Select Committees. We already have our Chairs in place and have decided our membership of the Committees. The Chairs could have called a meeting this week to set out their programme, and then had a meeting in the next sitting. The public cannot even present their petitions.

In the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), he said:

“I have found a group of middle-aged men protecting their egos in a bid to take over from a lame duck Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 628.]

The Leader of the House in her subsequent point of order confirmed that she is one of the group trying to take over, and did not even support her Prime Minister by saying that she was not a lame duck Prime Minister: still the nasty party. This obviously is a Portillo moment: not putting in the phone lines, but a run on SIM cards. I would contrast that and seven years of a Government who are not working for the many with our vision for all stages of life spelled out in 124 pages of a manifesto that is on its third reprint. [Interruption.] I have five minutes.

The electorate believed us, not the robotic tautological mantras. That is why we need an Opposition debate to clarify some myths. Let me list some. Who actually is responsible for the financial crash? Not the Labour party. [Interruption.] Listen. The United States investment bank Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008. In September 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed. The problem was cheap money, house price bubbles, financial deregulation and sub-prime mortgages—remember those?

May we also have a debate on the NHS, please? Last week, a point of order was raised suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) had described the NHS as a Labour institution. What she actually said was that it was a Labour-created institution. I refer hon. Members to the excellent book, “Nye: the political life of Aneurin Bevan” by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and to chapter 10, page 133, which deals with the creation of the NHS. Let us contrast that with the book written by the Secretary of State for Health, who wants to privatise the NHS.

What about a debate on that other myth—namely, that the deficit is larger under a Labour Government? The deficit is the difference between what the Government spend and what they receive. According to House of Commons Library information based on Office for Budget Responsibility and Office for National Statistics figures, the sum of all annual deficits between 1997 and 2010 was £437 billion, or £506 billion after adjusting for inflation. However, the sum of all annual deficits between 2010 and 2017 was £690 billion, or £728 billion after adjusting for inflation.

As women seem to be in the news at the moment, I want to mention some notable women who have passed away recently and to whom we have not yet paid tribute. Simone Veil was born in France and sent to Auschwitz. She carried the camp number that was tattooed on her arm. As a result of her experiences, she was passionate about peace in Europe and became the first female president of the European Parliament and established a woman’s right to choose in France, in very difficult circumstances. Sheila Michaels promoted the use of the title “Ms”. Maryam Mirzakhani became, in 2014, the first woman under 40 ever to win the Fields Medal for mathematics. Mary Turner was a trade unionist who fought for all of us to have a better life. She started her working life as a dinner lady and became president of the GMB, president of the TUC and chair of the Labour party. She was a giant of the Labour movement. She was formidable, and I can only ever remember her smiling. She will be sadly missed.

Those women’s inspiration lives on in the six schoolgirls from the Afghan robotics team who beat the Trump ban and took silver in the first global robotics event, as well as in England’s cricket team in the world cup final and our football team in Euro 2017 this Sunday. I think that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) played alongside some of the Scottish team. Maybe she should have been in the team! This month we also celebrate 100 years of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps. And not only can we drive trains, but we are now driving the Tardis.

I want to thank everyone from the Speaker’s Office, the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, the Office of the Clerks, and the Doorkeepers, all of whom make our lives very easy. I also want to thank Hansard, the House of Commons Library and of course all our staff. I say to every hon. Member on both sides of the House that we had a very difficult time during the lockdown and we then went straight into the general election. I know that it has been very difficult, and I wish every Member, new and old, a peaceful and restful summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation this morning delivered a major speech to a think-tank, Reform, setting out major developments in the Higher Education and Research Bill. He did that not having made an oral statement in this House, not having laid a written ministerial statement in this House and not having spent any time in his 32-minute speech yesterday on this area alluding to those developments.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think, I might think and many of us might think that that is a contempt and abuse of this House. It is the second year running that this Government have tried to make major statements about higher education on the last day of term, with the intention of evading scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House prevail upon the Universities Minister or another Minister to come to the House today and explain why, for example, the Government will make major changes to the teaching excellence framework, for which they are laying material today, and the Office for Students? [Interruption.] The chuntering Whip says from a sedentary position, “It is far too long”. We have had far too little from—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not need “chuntering” Whips. I know that the question is too long; I am sure the hon. Gentleman will now conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

In the hon. Gentleman’s “speech” on the subject, he made a number of very important points. On his substantive point about a speech that the The Government’s record on universities has been exemplary, with more students going to university, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds—up by more than 40% since 2010.

The hon. Gentleman criticises the number of written statements brought forward at the end of term, so I just point out that in 2007 there were 30 written statements; in 2008, there were also 30; in 2009, there were 33; and today I believe there are 22. Of course, as he will appreciate, it is vital for many Departments that they bring forward important—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question. The Leader of the House is answering it. It is simply rude to shout.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I was trying to make was that, as the hon. Gentleman and indeed all hon. Members will know, it is important that hon Members get the chance to see the last update possible before the House rises, so that they have the latest information, Department by Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The level of interest in this topic from the Opposition Benches suggests that it might be a good candidate for an Opposition day debate. I have answered this question six times now. The Department for Transport is spending billions on road and rail infrastructure, and delivering early wherever possible, and with the least disruption to communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience today goes to Dr David Drew.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish you a happy recess.

On the subject of abuse, will the Leader of the House take up the situation in Gloucestershire County Council, where a couple of weeks ago the Conservative Councillor Lynden Stowe referred on his Facebook page to the Leader of the Opposition as being comparable to Hitler and likened the Labour party’s campaign to attract younger voters to national socialism and other allied movements. Mr Stowe, who is also a cabinet member, has removed the comments but refuses to refute them. Given that abuse is a big topic on the Conservative Benches, would she like to have a word with the high command in Gloucestershire and get rid of him?

Business of the House

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

May I help my hon. Friend? The point he makes about the White Paper and its relation to possible amendments is a good one, because Members may wish to table amendments, new clauses and new schedules that relate to issues that they are not happy with in the White Paper, but we have not yet seen that White Paper. There is a very practical concern here, which is that we can table amendments before we have actually had a proper presentation of the facts by the Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I make a helpful suggestion? Members should put their names down to speak in the debate on Tuesday, at which point this would all be very relevant, but it is not relevant to what we are debating now.

Business of the House

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience goes to Jeff Smith.

[Jeff Smith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

And I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday.

[Jeff Smith]

Thank you also for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am grateful.

It is quite right, of course, that other parliamentary business should be shelved over the next couple of weeks so that we can debate article 50, and that includes the Bus Services Bill. In Manchester, we have been demanding London-style bus franchising powers for many years. We can wait a little longer, but may I encourage the Leader of the House to reschedule the Bus Services Bill as soon as possible after the recess so that Manchester can properly manage its transport network?

Strathclyde Review

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving me advance notice of his statement, which I received in exemplary fashion before 10 o’clock this morning.

I am afraid that this has all the hallmarks of government by fit of pique. The Leader of the House says that the review was set up “after constitutional questions were raised about the primacy of this elected House of Commons”. What utter tosh! The only people who were raising constitutional questions were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Leader of the House himself, who were stamping their little feet because they had not got their way. There were protests, yes, but people were not protesting against the Lords. They were protesting against the Government’s miserly attempt to cut working tax credits. The truth is that this is payback time. It has absolutely nothing to do with principle. Maybe the Leader of the House is still smarting from losing more votes in the House of Lords as a Minister than any other Minister in the last Parliament—24 in all, or a quarter of the total number of lost votes.

The most astonishing thing, however, is how Lord Strathclyde has done an about-turn. In 1999, when in opposition, he said of the convention that the House of Lords did not strike down statutory instruments:

“I declare this convention dead.”

But now he wants to resurrect it. There’s a word for that. Between 2001 and 2010, when Lord Strathclyde was Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, he led his colleagues through the Division Lobby to defeat the Labour Government 390 times, including once on a fatal motion on a statutory instrument. Now he thinks that that is a disgraceful way to behave. There’s a word for that.

This was meant to be all about the financial privilege of the House of Commons, but can the Leader of the House confirm that the review makes no distinction whatever between secondary legislation where financial privilege is concerned and any other form of secondary legislation? In essence, the Government are seeking to stop the Lords having any right to oppose any secondary legislation, whatever they might put through in it.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the other problem with secondary legislation is that because it is unamendable, each House is simply asked to say aye or no, content or not content? So ping-pong does not make any kind of sense. The report does not make sense, either. It seems to imagine a statutory instrument being sent back to the Commons, but the two Houses have completely distinct processes for deciding on secondary legislation. Every piece of secondary legislation that is now advanced depends on a parent Act. Each of them specifies whether the regulations shall be subject to the affirmative or negative decision process and whether there has to be a vote in one or both Houses before coming into force. Are the Government really intending retrospective amendment of each one of these Acts of Parliament? There is a simple answer to this problem: use less secondary legislation and only use secondary legislation for non-contentious matters—do not use it for significant matters that dramatically affect households in this country.

The House of Lords is far from perfect—the Prime Minister has packed it with 240 new Members, doing so faster than any Prime Minister in history—but surely it would be wrong to deal with aspects of the powers and the role of the Lords without considering its composition. Is it not time we had a constitutional convention and proper, thoroughgoing reform? There is a pattern here: the Government have changed the voting rights in this House; they have curtailed the rights of trade unions and voluntary organisations to campaign; they have made it more difficult for the poor and the young to register; and today we learn that they have increased the number of Conservative special advisers from 74 to 96, costing an additional £1.6 million a year, even as they want to cut the support for Opposition scrutiny of this Government by 20%. Where there is dissent, they crush it. Where a body opposes them, they neuter it. That is not a Conservative Government, respectful of the constitution, dutiful in their dealings with their opponents, cautious in advancing radical change and determined to govern for the whole nation. It is not a Conservative Government; in the words of one of their former leaders, Disraeli, it is an “organised hypocrisy”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not allow him to use that word that he has just used—the very last one.

[Chris Bryant]

Those were words used by Disraeli in this House. I am not maintaining that any Member has acted hypocritically, but I am saying that this set of proposals is an organised hypocrisy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the fact that Disraeli was also wrong does not make him right. I am sure he will find a better way of putting that last sentence he used.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, what word would you use for it? Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not imputing any sense of dishonourableness to any hon. Member of this House or any other House, but I am saying that the Government are trying to get something through the back door and that that is not fundamentally, for the Government, an honest way of behaving.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not impugning any Member of this House, so for the moment I will let him away with it.

[Chris Grayling]

It does not feel as though we are trying to move anything through the back door, given that I am standing in front of the House making a statement and setting out a report that has been prepared with a number of options for the Government to consider and undoubtedly for this House to debate before any legislative change could happen—if legislative change were to be adopted as a result of this report. There is a degree of faux outrage from the other side on this matter.

Let us be clear about what happens. This House has an elected mandate, unlike the House of Lords. Our majority Government have a democratic mandate to implement our manifesto, and that is what we have sought to do. The conventions that have guided the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons have existed for a very long time, and they have indeed broken down over many years. The Government’s view is that it is time to re-establish a framework for the relationship between the two Houses which reflects the fact that this is the elected House of Commons. That is the purpose of the report, and it sets out three options for all of us to consider. Of course it makes specific reference to the issue of financial matters. The Commons has had primacy over financial matters for centuries; there are already Commons-only statutory instruments on financial matters. What occurred this autumn was the first time that a financial matter that had come before the House of Lords had been rejected—it was the first time a fatal motion had been used. Over the previous decades there had been hardly any fatal motions on SIs. On reading this report—I again thank Lord Strathclyde for his work—it is my view that in many respects it gives the Lords a clearer and broader role in the consideration of secondary legislation, while also making it clear that ultimately the democratically elected Chamber has to have the final say.

When the shadow Leader of the House talks about using less secondary legislation and about the composition of the House of Lords, I simply look back to my first few years in this House, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that you were first elected in 1997, and I can say that I have no memory of a shortage of SIs being brought forward under the Labour Governments. I also have no memory of a shortage of appointments by Tony Blair of his friends and cronies to the House of Lords over an extended period, so I will take no lessons from Labour Members.