Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House
Robert Syms Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
No, it is not what I am saying. I am saying what I said in my own words. Let me go to the decision that I think the Government took on the motions; then the Leader of the House may comment in due course.
What the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, in his pitch to Mr Speaker yesterday and in his debate today, was that in both debates the Government argued against the motions that were on the Order Paper. Before today’s debate I carefully read the debates to see whether that was right: I do not think it was. In the NHS debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not argue against the motion on the Order Paper. What he actually said was that it was bogus, because it did not address some of the fundamental issues. [Interruption.] This is exactly as I said, Mr Speaker. As soon as attention is drawn to the motions on the Order Paper, which the House was being asked to agree, people do not like it. That is the fundamental point here, and one I am sure my right hon. Friend considered before he made a decision about the way that Government Members should vote.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
One of the most precious things in this House is a party deciding when it will or when it will not vote. That is up to a party, or indeed up to a Government. This is the first time I can remember an Opposition complaining that they are not being defeated by the Government.
Mr Harper
It is interesting, because when I read the debate it was of course the Opposition spokesman, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who asked the Government not to divide the House on the NHS motion. The Government then proceeded not to divide the House on the motion, and now all we get is a load of complaints—which seems to me remarkably strange.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is wrong. My family has suffered a baby loss. This is a very important date, because it is the anniversary of the death of my brother’s baby, my brother being my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I know how important the issue is, but this is not a debate about a debate. People throughout the country want to know what is going on and what we do in Parliament. They want to know that their Parliament is supreme. They want to know that we are debating and discussing.
The position that was outlined in the motions appeared in the manifesto of the Democratic Unionist party, and its members owe their electorate an explanation of why they did not vote in support. Because the DUP has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, the Government knew that they could not command its support, and would have lost the vote. That is significant, because the confidence and supply agreement itself has to come before the House to be debated. Again, it takes the courts to tell the Government what parliamentary democracy means. Worse still, the Government then decided, during the conference recess, that the Opposition’s policies on those two subjects would be their policies. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will know that the Government made a statement on both policies.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned a journalist who is well known around the House, and who suggested that the Government were not intending to vote against or amend our motions, but would sit on their hands for all our Opposition debates.
Mr Syms
The hon. Lady has been in the House for long enough to know that many things are debated here. Ten-minute rule Bills are let through because they raise an issue, and motions are sometimes passed by a few Members during Back-Bench business debates because, again, they raise an important issue. Is it not right that the Government make their own decisions about what they will oppose and what they will not oppose? At the end of the day, that is a choice for the Front Bench. If, politically, Members think that that is a bad thing to do, let them have their Standing Order No. 24 and make the point, but ultimately what we vote for is down to the Cabinet and the Whips Office, and that is our choice.
Valerie Vaz
This is a debating Chamber, and this is a revising Parliament. Members can table motions, and then people can see what policy comes out. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the deputy shadow Leader of the House, persuaded the Government to take on board the need for a new piece of legislation, and that is how we do things here. Ministers listen, they take on board what happens, and then we move forward. That is what I am trying to say.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Robert Syms Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
For the past four years I have been involved in the Hannah Mitchell Foundation, which has led the debate to get new powers in the north for the north. The group has worked tirelessly to get the message out there and has attracted considerable support across the northern regions—across towns and cities and, yes, across parties—for a regional government settlement that will enable regions with much to offer economically and socially to have greater control over spending, decision making and their own affairs.
This is not a new campaign—it is not just jumping on the devolution bandwagon post-Scotland. It has been going on for many years and is now gathering more and more support. Indeed, all the meetings at which I have spoken over the past few years have been packed out. Something has to give on this issue. Personally, I do not want to see city regions or a greater concentration of power in, for instance, Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds. That is not what the debate should be about.
The debate has to go wider than that. An English Parliament is not the solution, and anyone who thinks so is misreading the situation. All that would do is concentrate further power in the south, in London, and it would leave northern regions and other parts of England, such as Cornwall, increasingly isolated as England became more centralised, not less.
This is the time to grasp the nettle. Let us not pretend that the referendum vote in the north-east 10 years ago did not put the issue on the back foot—it did, and we made mistakes in that campaign—but this is 2014, not 2004. We should now go back on the attack and take up the case for regional government, rather than talk defensively about what happened a decade ago. If a week is a long time in politics, a decade is an eternity.
Over those 10 years, the democratic deficit has grown ever stronger, but a vacuum in decision making already existed, with increased powers for Scotland and a southern-dominated Westminster Parliament. People ask, “Who speaks for England?” We should also ask who speaks for northern regions. Why do other regions benefit from extra resources and powers, but not the residents of Halifax, Hull or Huddersfield?
Anyone who does not believe that regional government’s time is coming should bear this in mind: in 1979, devolution was rejected by the people of Wales by 4:1; yet in 2011, a referendum on greater powers for the Welsh Assembly was endorsed by 63% of them.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
There was one very big difference: in the 1970s, the legislation and the debate happened in Parliament and then there was the referendum, but under the Blair Government, the referendum was held first and then there was the legislation, so some of the issues were not explored. [Interruption.]
Mrs Riordan
Exactly. Times change and things change. The policy on devolution should not be based on one referendum, because what is happening goes wider than that. People want decisions to be taken for their areas in their areas.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
As a Conservative Unionist, I was a veteran of the debates of the late 1990s, and I have to say that I always opposed devolution. The reason was that I thought it would be a stepping stone towards independence. After all the years that have gone by, I cannot say that I feel confident that the United Kingdom is still not under threat as we move ahead. The Labour Government of the time constructed all the paraphernalia of the state in Edinburgh, but did not give it the financial independence to go with it so they got the blame for things. For the past 15 years, Edinburgh has been blaming London—the Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments—for all its ills.
What we have now is creative tension between two Parliaments. One Parliament wants more power and another Parliament holds the purse strings. Logically, that leads to frustration in Scotland, which is why we ended up with a referendum. Although I am opposed to devolution, I think that if Scotland is to stay in the United Kingdom, we must consider more fiscal independence and more tax-raising powers, because then its people will be taking more responsibility, and indeed more blame, for what goes on in Edinburgh. That is the only way to avoid a long-running sore of a debate between London and Edinburgh. The same thing is happening in our debate with the European Union. I am a Eurosceptic, and there are many who believe that if only we came out of Europe, all our problems would be solved.
The debate between Scotland and England has been bedevilled by the fact that it is easy to blame the United Kingdom and the Westminster Government for things, and to say that everything would be all right if we just sorted out the problem. If we need to sort out the problem, we must consider giving more fiscal powers and responsibility to Edinburgh. With that, it will get both credit and blame for some of the decisions it takes.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The logical conclusion of my hon. Friend’s remarks is that we must find an equitable and just solution for all the countries of this Union. My constituents—and, I believe, those of my hon. Friend—believe that English votes for English laws is the first stepping stone of that equitable and just solution.
Mr Syms
Yes, I certainly think that that is the case, but we must consider the situation north of the border. There is no appetite for regional government in the United Kingdom, but there is an appetite for showing local government more respect, giving it more responsibility and passing it more money. From my experience in local government and in Westminster, I can say that local government is much better at controlling money and decisions than we are here. The country would probably be better governed if we had more confidence in some of our local authorities.
Mr MacNeil
I am quite impressed that the hon. Gentleman has allowed logic to overcome his earlier beliefs against independence. He should be genuinely congratulated on that. He has looked at the situation and taken his views further. Is not the next logical step, and the first stepping stone to reducing the tension he has mentioned, full fiscal autonomy for Scotland?
Mr Syms
There are of course issues relating to the fact that we are interdependent within the economy. There are firms operating in both places. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a strong point about burdens on business, but I think that substantial fiscal powers and tax-raising powers should be moved to the Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that would reduce tensions and effectively make MPs more responsive to their electorate as they would see what they were doing well and what they were doing badly. At the moment, the debate is very much between Edinburgh and Westminster, and that would be the case whoever were in Government. However, the tensions would be higher when there was a right of centre Government at Westminster and a left of centre Government in Holyrood.
On the matter of English votes, I have been very surprised over the past 15 years that the English have not been in revolt and have not been too upset over what is manifestly an unsatisfactory settlement. However, as we see further powers going to the Scottish Parliament and the manifest unfairnesses in this Chamber, people will start to ask very serious questions. It is better that we answer those questions now than let things build up and start creating greater tension. I am not sure whether English votes is the right solution or not, as it is messy, but I certainly think that we need to start the process of looking at how we govern ourselves and how we are fair to England.
It is a fact that if England has 84% of the population, it is going to dominate. That is what happened before Scotland joined the Union. Effectively, England was the elephant next door. The benefit of the United Kingdom was that the other countries had a disproportionate say within the United Kingdom Parliament, which worked very well. That changed in the 1990s, and once it changed the dynamics of the Union changed. We have to be fair to the 84% of people who are in England and I hope that we can reach a solution in which we can live as a happy family, and perhaps a more diverse family. The reality is that the logic of devolution is to give people more fiscal power and let them take that responsibility. The logic of the devolution settlement in the 1990s in Wales and later in Northern Ireland and Scotland is that there is an issue to be addressed and if we do not reverse the situation we will all get very raggy and angry because people will manifestly think that they are being unfairly treated.
Business of the House
Robert Syms Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I do not like to be critical of the Government, but we have a lot of statements about things that have either gone wrong or allegedly gone wrong, and we do not have enough statements about all the very good things that are going right. This coalition Government are doing a fantastic job, many things are going right in the economy, and those on the Front Bench should do far more to boost this country and to put the optimistic case forward.
Mr Lansley
I accept my hon. Friend’s chastisement. I will encourage my colleagues to make more statements of the character that he describes, but I point him towards the Budget statement on 19 March, which I know will be an opportunity to present to the House many of the things that he and I recognise, and the House should recognise, have been a success under this coalition Government.
Business of the House
Robert Syms Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May we have a debate about morality in the tax system, with particular reference to section 58 of the Finance Act 2008? Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is trying to collect tax retrospectively from some 2,200 people, including constituents of mine. Some of them will have to sell their homes. We really need to debate this issue and reconsider it.
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will ask Ministers in the Treasury to respond directly to my hon. Friend, although he will know that the subject was discussed during consideration of the Finance Act. We are careful to ensure that the instances in which legislation has a retrospective effect are minimised, and that when it does occur, it is subject to specific advice from the Law Officers about its appropriateness.
Traveller Sites (Dorset)
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I am pleased that the House has disposed of its business rapidly so that we can have a proper debate on Travellers in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset. In a minute, one or two of my colleagues might run into the Chamber having been caught by the collapse of business.
Before I start, let me say that I have just emerged from hospital, having had appendicitis, and I would like to thank Oliver Allenby-Smith, his team and all the nurses on ward B4 of Poole hospital, who have been nursing me for five days. I am now on the mend and able to represent here my constituents in Dorset.
We all recognise the importance of making provision for Travellers. My experience throughout my political career is that if we make proper provision we have the legal powers to move people on from inappropriate places. It was a retrograde step when the John Major Government decided to move away from paying for pitches, because that diminished the infrastructure for many of the Traveller sites and has caused us problems ever since.
The difficulty in Dorset is that in 1996 Bournemouth and Poole both realised their aspirations of becoming unitary authorities again, and therefore strategic authorities. However, consideration was not given to the boundaries of either authority, so both remained fairly tightly drawn. From central Poole or central Bournemouth one can get to rural Dorset in about 10 or 15 minutes, so there is logic in having a policy for Travellers that encompasses not only Dorset county council, but the two other strategic authorities, Poole and Bournemouth.
Under the Housing Act 2004 Poole undertook a review of the housing need of Travellers. It carried out a consultation on the number of sites and came up with 20. It reduced that to three sites within its boundaries. One of the joys of having a local authority with no overall control is that the committee then decided to consult on all 20 sites. So I have many concerned and worried constituents who think they may well have a Traveller site in their own back yard.
I would like more co-ordination and co-operation among the three authorities. They all want to work together, but there are certain things that are causing a problem. One of the issues relates to policing, which does not impact directly on the Department for Communities and Local Government. The issue of joint transit provision is not one that strategic authorities are able to consider, because the Criminal Justice Act 2004 does not give the police powers to move Travellers across strategic authority boundaries. In Dorset, joint provision between lower-tier authorities is possible because under Dorset county council the higher tier is the strategic authority. Poole and Bournemouth do not have this opportunity because they themselves are both strategic authorities. Those authorities therefore have to provide facilities within area. That is not necessarily an easy fix. It seems bizarre that Dorset has one police force, the Dorset constabulary, yet under the law as it relates to policing, the force cannot move Travellers across Poole, Bournemouth or Dorset because they happen to be unitary authorities. That needs to be dealt with.
I would like a Minister to set out when we are likely to get the Travellers review. It would be helpful to see what obligations the local authority has. Does the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the duty of co-operation in plan-making, set out whether that will override other duties? What we need is co-operation among the three authorities. It is logical and it follows from our history and our geography that they should work together. Both Bournemouth and Poole are happy to make their contribution in financial terms, but the very tight geographical boundaries that both have make it extremely difficult to identify sites which do not have another purpose. In my constituency in Poole, for example, the only green area we have is Parkstone golf club. To the west is water, and to the north is an area of outstanding natural beauty and green belt, so identifying an efficient site within Poole will be extremely difficult.
Then there are the issues of permanent sites and transit sites. It is important that there should be transit sites. The advantage of Poole is that the transit site could easily be only a few miles up the road in rural Dorset, yet at present we seem to be precluded from taking action. I should like more information on what is envisaged. Earlier this year the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) replied to a written question on Travellers from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). My right hon. Friend said that he understood that there was widespread concern about rules and guidance on Travellers sites. He stated that the Department for Communities and Local Government had published the new draft planning policy for Travellers sites for consultation in April 2011, but I still do not think we have clarity.
On a number of occasions I, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) have tried to pin the Government down to give us more specifics, but the Government have not been able to do so. The situation is difficult. Logic demands a collaborative approach among Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth in discharging our duties towards Travellers. We have not been able to do so because of slight legal impediments, the police impediment that I set out, and the lack of clarity.
I hope that the Minister will be able to set out clearly the requirements under the Localism Act 2011. I had great hopes of the Act. This is the great new dawn for local government. The Act specifically introduces a duty to co-operate in plan-making, although there are no definitions of what the duty consists of. The authorities are meant to come together to agree a plan strategically. This is, in effect, what is happening between the three strategic authorities, Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole, with the joint Gypsy and Traveller work. However, that does not mean that we can offload our responsibility to provide appropriate sites, and we would not wish to do so.
We are in a state of flux. The borough council wants to do the right thing, but because there is no overall control, it has consulted on too many sites and there are many worried people. Our geography and our history mean that identifying appropriate sites is very difficult. As I stated, we went from 20 sites down to three and consulted on the three. One of the three sites under serious consideration, which was in the Branksome triangle, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, is already being used for car parking for Liverpool Victoria and is therefore in employment use. It is very difficult for us to identify a site that could be used as a permanent or a transit site without losing employment land. We want to do the right thing, but that is extremely difficult because of our history and our geography. That is why I hope for some answers from the Minister.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate. Does he agree that one of the major issues that we face is uncertainty, which is upsetting and unsettling many members of the local communities that we both serve across the Bournemouth and Poole conurbation?
Mr Syms
I agree. That is an important point. As a local politician, I am trying to get some certainty, as I am sure is my hon. Friend, so that there is a much clearer sense of direction. Therefore, we need a few more answers from Ministers. If we do not get them tonight, clearly we might need to have further meetings with the Minister concerned. The uncertainty means that people are becoming much more worried than they need to be, not least because Poole is consulting on rather too many sites, some of which are not appropriate, and worrying a lot of people. My postbag is filling up with letters from people who have genuine concerns, as I am sure is my hon. Friend’s. Poole wants to do the right thing.
Conor Burns
One thing that is causing considerable anxiety locally is the fact that our councils are being forced to do the consultation that they are now undertaking. My understanding is that the consultation is part-funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government and that it is a central Government requirement on local government. The point my hon. Friend made a moment ago about definition and clarity around the Localism Act 2011 is extremely important in relation to the Minister's response.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that the 2011 Act is a landmark piece of legislation, and we have high hopes that it will transform local government. He is right that we need a little more clarity on whether it will offset some of the other requirements that the Government have put on Poole. We want to do the right thing and provide sufficient sites. We want to provide what we have a duty to provide and to pay for it, but the difficulty is that he and I have extremely compact constituencies. It is difficult to find appropriate sites in our constituencies, yet there might be appropriate sites five or 10 minutes away from the conurbation. However, because we have unitary and strategic authorities it is very difficult to do that and leave Dorset constabulary in a situation where it can move Travellers on if it has to.
I know that Bournemouth has problems with Travellers on occasion and a number of temporary sites to deal with them at certain times of the year. Later in the debate I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West set out his constituents’ concerns on what is a difficult and worrying subject, but one on which we as politicians need to get more clarity. Essentially, we want three authorities to work together on this, which is the whole thrust of the 2011 Act and which they want to do. We want to combine financially and make provision for Travellers in the appropriate way; the most appropriate way might be for the three authorities to make that provision on a collective basis. That might mean not necessarily having the sufficient number of sites within the boundaries of Bournemouth or Poole.
We need more clarity, and I hope that we will get it from the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has similar views and concerns to mine and I would be interested to hear them, so that the Minister may reply with conviction and give us more reassurance on this very difficult policy issue that our local councillors have to comply with. That is really all I have to say. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in his place and am sure that he will respond brilliantly to the debate. If we do not get the answer we demand tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West and I will look forward to further meetings with Ministers so that we can meet our objectives of providing for Travellers, safeguarding our constituents and getting efficient and effective local government.
Conor Burns
I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place after his no doubt successful visit to the Falkland Islands—and this on Commonwealth day. As he knows, sometimes Governments of all persuasions need a little push, and it is our constituents who are giving us a push as those sites go out to consultation.
The current consultation, which is being carried out by Baker Associates throughout Dorset and funded to the tune of some £300,000 by the Department, is profoundly unsettling the communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and I serve. One proposed site out to consultation at the moment is Lansdowne, right at the heart of Bournemouth, known locally as the gateway to Bournemouth and visible from the Wessex way.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend makes a valid and compelling point which I wholly agree with and endorse.
My final point is that those communities, which include some elderly, vulnerable and frail people, are worried that our councils have gone out to consultation on specific sites. There is an excellent campaign being run on the Lansdowne site by a lady called Alex De Freitas, who has mobilised local traders and residents to put across their concerns.
We really want to hear tonight a compelling answer of some urgency from the Minister as to when our local authorities will be able to move away from that consultation and take up the very sensible powers with which they were presented in both governing parties’ pre-election offerings to the British people: the opportunity to come together and to make provision across multiple-authority areas, thereby giving the police the powers to move on the illegal encampments that do so much damage to the communities that my hon. Friend and I serve.
I, like my constituents, look forward with eager anticipation to the words of reassurance that will doubtless now flow from the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
First, let me say what an unexpected pleasure it is to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter that is of genuine significance and importance to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who spoke with eloquence about the situation that they face in Dorset and in their unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole on having secured the debate. I am delighted to respond to at least some of the points that he raised, although he will understand that I may not be able to respond to them all, including those that refer to specific sites and specific planning applications and situations, because ultimately they might finish up on the desk of the Secretary of State, and in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to offer a view from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Syms
May I say how very pleased I am to have my hon. Friend the Minister here replying to the debate? Sometimes greatness is thrust on people at the last minute. I look forward to his response, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I will find it perfectly understandable if he cannot respond to all the points raised.
Andrew Stunell
This debate is being conducted in a generosity of spirit that we could perhaps export to other parts of our proceedings at other times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that he was disappointed that a previous Government had withdrawn funding for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites and expressed the view that that had made the situation more difficult. I remind him that this Government have recently announced a grant programme that will enable some 700 Gypsy and Traveller sites to be refurbished and built across England. There is still some money left in the fund, and we are open to receiving bids for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites to take advantage of that funding. I understand his point about the added difficulty created by the various planning constraints that arise if it is also thought that significant amounts of money have to be spent, but the Government have responded to that. I appreciate his request for the Government to provide additional encouragement for the three authorities to work together, particularly in the potential co-ordination of police action. I will come to those points in a few minutes.
I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to encouraging sustainable development, and it is extremely important that local authorities plan for the future of their communities, within which there will be Gypsies and Travellers. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have taken steps to abolish the regional spatial strategies, and we have published the draft national planning policy framework on which a consultation has concluded and on which a further announcement can be expected shortly. That clearly states that local authorities have a duty to provide a housing supply for residents living in their area, including those within the Gypsy and Traveller community. I welcome the fact that both my hon. Friends said that they recognised the commitment to provide sites.
Andrew Stunell
I should make it clear to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not feel any deep obligation to keep going for another hour and a quarter.
I would not want my hon. Friend to be too premature. The final version of the national planning policy framework has not yet been published. As I said earlier in my remarks, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, has told the House that the intention is that the national planning policy framework should be published before the end of this month. At that point, there will also be a statement on how it comes into force. Until that moment, it would not be appropriate for a planning authority to proceed—indeed, the authority could not proceed, because our proposals of last year have not yet been confirmed. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and I might have a reasonable expectation that when the framework is in force, the words he has used would be the appropriate ones to apply.
Mr Syms
I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. He deserves time off for good behaviour. I am sure that any points that he has not covered can be dealt with later by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
Localism Act 2011
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) The following new Standing Order be made—
‘Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders
(1) The Regulatory Reform Committee shall examine and report on—
(i) every draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
(ii) every draft order laid before the House under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011.
(2) In the case of every draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall consider the Minister’s recommendation under section 15(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) as to the procedure which should apply to it and shall report to the House any recommendation under that Act that a different procedure should apply.
(3) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) has an effect which is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured;
(c) strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
(f) is not of constitutional significance;
(g) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(h) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(4) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(ii) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(5) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the negative or affirmative procedure under section 16 or 17 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order should be made (in the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter whether the recommendation was agreed without a division. (6) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the super-affirmative procedure under section 18 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act; or
(c) no statement under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or revised draft order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act should be laid.
(7) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is subject to the super-affirmative procedure and is being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (3) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(8) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(9) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 16(4) of the 2006 Act that the draft order be not made, or under section 17(3), 18(5) or 18(9) of the 2006 Act that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(10) In relation to every draft order laid under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 19(3) of that Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 19(7) of that Act; or
(c) no statement under section 19(3) of that Act or revised draft order under section 19(7) of that Act should be laid.
(11) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (4) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(12) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011 that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(3) of that Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(7) of that Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(13) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 19(5) or 19(9) of the Localism Act 2011 that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.’.
(2) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) be amended as follows—
(a) in line 5, at end, insert ‘, other than one laid under section 18 of the Act as applied by section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or by section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’;
(b) line 12, at end, insert ‘; and to carry out its functions under Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(c) in line 78, at end, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is’;
(d) in line 79, after ‘procedure’, insert ‘and is’;
(e) in line 92, after ‘orders’, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and’;
(f) in line 97, after second ‘order’ insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order’;
(g) in line 134, at end, insert ‘or within paragraph (1) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’; and
(h) in line 148, at end, add ‘or under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011’.
(3) Standing Order No. 18 be amended as follows—
(a) leave out from ‘under’ in line 2 to ‘should’ in line 6 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure should be approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(b) leave out from ‘under’ in line 14 to ‘be’ in line 16 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure be not approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(c) in line 25, after ‘141’, insert ‘or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(d) in line 28, leave out ‘Act’, and insert ‘Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006’; and
(e) in the title, at end, insert ‘etc.’.
(4) Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended, in line 21, after ‘2006’, by inserting the words ‘any draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’.
The motion may be rather long and complex—at one point in its gestation it was even longer and more complex—but it should not be controversial. Essentially, it provides for certain draft orders which are akin to draft orders under part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to be subject to Commons scrutiny in the same way as the draft orders under the 2006 Act. This will involve detailed consideration by the Regulatory Reform Committee followed by proceedings on the Floor of the House, with the nature of those proceedings reflecting the views of the Committee. The proposals follow consultation with the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee and the official Opposition. No objections have been voiced to the proposed method of proceeding. I have also spoken to the Chair of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who has confirmed that he is content with the proposed approach.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
What we now have is rather longer and more comprehensive but I think it does the job and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful for that endorsement.
I shall confine my remarks to two matters—the drafting of the Standing Orders and an account of how the procedures will work. As I have already admitted, the proposals before us are complex, but the complexity flows from the complexity of the current provisions in Standing Order No. 141. An earlier version of the motion on which I consulted was even more complex and I was asked to describe this version of the motion as the “simplified” one. Although I am confident that this motion will work, and its provisions are explained in further detail in an explanatory memorandum, I am not convinced that it is as simple as the House would wish. The Procedure Committee has indicated a willingness to consider the overall approach enshrined in Standing Order No. 141 and in the new Standing Order, and I know the Regulatory Reform Committee will also have an interest in the matter. If those Committees were to propose a simpler approach that delivered the same outcome, I believe it would be welcomed by the House.
The nature of the order-making powers covered by the motion is described in the explanatory memorandum, so I shall not describe them now. Because the powers are broad and can involve change to primary legislation, the Localism Act 2011 provides for enhanced scrutiny arrangements, including a so-called super-affirmative procedure, by direct application of or by analogy with the scrutiny arrangements under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Commons Standing Orders currently assign the additional scrutiny powers under the 2006 Act to the Regulatory Reform Committee and we propose that the Committee should have the same role in respect of the new orders.
The Committee’s powers are extensive. It considers the merits of each order and the appropriateness of the proposed method of proceeding. It can conclude that a particular measure should not be proceeded with or should be subject to different proceedings. Its conclusions help to determine the procedures that are then followed on the Floor of the House. The motion enables the House to consider the new orders in the same way as orders under the 2006 Act. The proposals are complex and we have an open mind on their being simplified in due course. For the immediate future, to enable proper scrutiny to take place, I commend the motion to the House.
Code of Conduct
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of his Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A great deal of thought has gone into their review, and much of what is suggested makes perfect sense. However, my amendment seeks to address and limit the no doubt well-intentioned recommendation that will allow the commissioner to broaden his remit into investigating and adjudicating on Members’ conduct in their wider private and personal lives. I believe that that proposed intrusion into Members’ private and personal lives is a step too far, and I am worried about where it may lead the commissioner and the House if left unamended.
Justifying an extension of the commissioner’s powers, the Committee states on page 11 of its report, paragraph 2, that
“The Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives or in the wider conduct of their public lives unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
If deconstructed, however, that statement, far from limiting the new powers of the commissioner in the area of Members’ private and personal lives, gives him almost unlimited scope to investigate any action committed in this space on the basis that it is potentially damaging to the reputation of Parliament and its Members. A less generous, but accurate, interpretation of paragraph 2, page 11, would read as follows: “The code will seek to regulate the conduct of Members of Parliament in their purely private and personal lives, if it is the view of the commissioner and the Committee that their actions could be deemed significantly to damage the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”
I worry about where this new activism by the commissioner might lead. Over the weekend, I racked my brain to try and imagine scenarios in Members’ private lives that would trigger the interest of the commissioner, and I could only come up with two topics: the bedroom and the bottle. In common with most people, these are the two weaknesses that seem most likely to compromise Members of Parliament in their private lives.
On page 24 of the report, the commissioner argues that his interest is warranted on the basis that
“a Member of Parliament is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”
I dispute that view. Despite living in his constituency full-time, the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne—namely, myself—is, on occasion, most certainly off duty, and be assured, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were not off duty on occasions, I would slowly, but surely, go mad. Perhaps that point has already been reached.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I find it refreshing that the commissioner thinks we are never off duty. I wonder whether that will be reflected in the Senior Salaries Review Body review of our salaries.
Mr Walker
The example given was fraud, and it was also extraordinarily tortuous.
The Leader of the House, whom I do not often pray in aid of my arguments—as he knows—has been here for 40 years and he cannot think of anything in that time that would have required this power to have been exercised. We in this place are brilliant at inventing new misdemeanours and crimes as sticks with which to beat ourselves.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend talked about bed and the bottle. I have never been asked to go on a billionaire’s yacht, although it is something that one would perhaps look forward to, but some Members of this House do stay with important people when on holiday. Does he think that this proposal will give another hand to those who want MPs to have to declare where they are going on holiday?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend leads me into the final part of my speech. Let us be clear that however well intentioned the power the commissioner is seeking, it will mean that Members’ private and personal lives will be in the ambit of investigation. Their actions will be scrutinised by the commissioner and a subjective view will be taken of whether or not those actions could cause significant damage to the reputation of the House. Every sexual peccadillo, domestic dispute or unguarded cross word would lead to tabloid calls for the commissioner to take action—“Something must be done”, the headlines will cry. The commissioner argues that in the event of an undefined personal scandal, the House’s status would be diminished if it
“were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.”
In a sense, that sounds like a return, after 17 years, to “back to basics”. We know what a disaster that was; we had all these moral judgments applied to the activities of Members. The one example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did provide would be covered by criminal law in any case, so it is not relevant to this debate.
In conclusion, I am fully aware that Members of Parliament can do bad and unethical things in their capacity as Members of Parliament, which is why these standards and the code of conduct are so important. As importantly, I am also aware that people can do silly and stupid things regardless of who they are, because none of us was born an angel or a saint. So I strongly believe that the House should confine itself to worrying about the matters that directly pertain to the job of being an elected representative, and not those that relate to general human weakness or stupidity. For that reason, I urge the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, for whom I have a huge amount of time, and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) and for Mole Valley, of whom I am extraordinarily fond, despite our little spat this evening, to support my amendment. On this occasion, it is time that the House recognised that the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne is arguing for the virtuous and should carry the day.
Business of the House
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Alan Beith
I have a choice. I will give way first to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), then to his hon. Friend.
Sir Alan Beith
I am an avid and long-standing supporter of the principle of a House business committee. I think you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, were I to stray too far into that subject, but let me say that that is indeed a matter that could be so resolved were that committee in existence. For the moment, however, we must look to the Leader of the House to do such things for us.
Mr Syms
It has always seemed strange to me that on estimates days we have before us vast tomes showing where the Government have switched money from one Department or one heading to another, but we tend to debate leisure centres or swimming or something else—nothing to do with money. If this House is serious about money, surely we ought to look at the estimates rather than debate some odd other subject?
Sir Alan Beith
Absolutely so, and I have been advocating that for some time.
That brings me to my next point, which is about ensuring that Select Committees, which are the proper place to look at some of the substance of the estimates decisions and the movements of money from one thing to another, have appropriate time to consider such matters—as much time as possible, so that they can conduct meaningful scrutiny. Our discussions with the Treasury and the Leader of the House about that are reflected in the motions, but we will watch carefully to make sure that Select Committees are not expected within ridiculous periods—a few days—to produce considered views on the serious substance of estimates.
To sum up, the two major points that the Liaison Committee will certainly be considering and that we want the Government to consider are that due regard is given to the Committee’s previous recommendation of five estimates days per Session, and that Select Committees have time to consider estimates properly and so assist the House in doing what many right hon. and hon. Members have long felt should be done when we deal with estimates.
Ministerial Statements
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hollobone
That is a helpful intervention—I shall refer my remarks to all three major parties, if that is better.
All Governments, whether this Government, the previous Government or the one before that, have leaked information, and that is not how our great House of Commons ought to be treated.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend name me any Government who have not leaked information to the press?
Mr Hollobone
No, I cannot. This increasingly has become standard practice, but it is fair to say that it has got worse over the past five, 10 or 15 years. I am sure, however, that it was prevalent before.
Today, we have a golden opportunity that is, in many ways, unique: for the first time, thanks to the Leader of the House and other Ministers of the Crown, we have the Backbench Business Committee, which has been able to bring this motion to the Floor of the House for resolution tonight. Although hon. Members in past decades will have been frustrated by how the Government of the day leaked information, this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to do something about it.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome the chance to debate this issue today because it is important sometimes to debate first principles about what we are for and what we ought to get up to in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) criticised the Government for behaving in the same old, bad old ways, but of course this debate would not have occurred under the previous Government or in any of the previous 13 years I have been here. The Government have made reforms and have been rather more open-minded about how the House has proceeded than their predecessors.
My criticism of my hon. Friend is that he is harping back to a mythical golden age when all decisions were made in this House and everyone outside waited for the House to hear a statement. The reality, certainly in my time in the House, is that that has never been the case. It was not the case under Mrs Thatcher or in the 1950s when many Governments—Macmillan’s and others—had Information Ministers in their Cabinets. It certainly was not the case when Winston Churchill, one of our greatest Prime Ministers and a great parliamentarian, was running a Government in very difficult circumstances. He had a lot of mates in the press and things were leaked to them. Neither was it the case when Neville Chamberlain arrived at the airport with his piece of paper. He did not say, “I’ve got to nip back to the Commons and make a statement.” He said, “Peace in our time.” So let us be clear about this—nothing much has changed in the way that Governments have done business ever since the emergence of the popular press.
Mr Gray
I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has become some kind of apologist for Ministers who leak things. He might be right to say that it has always happened, although I think the pace has accelerated very sharply in recent years. The purpose of this debate is to discuss not whether this has happened but whether it should happen. Surely what we are saying is, “No, it should not happen. Things should be announced in this House first and Ministers should not go to the media and announce things there first.”
Mr Syms
I think we have to live in the real world—a world with 24-hour news. We know that when Governments consult on policies, some of those who do not like those policies decide deliberately to leak information, and Government Ministers are then sometimes called into studios to defend or explain their position. If we have a protocol within the House that makes it difficult for Ministers to explain what the Government’s position is, a lot of our constituents will be worried unnecessarily because, to coin a phrase, a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That quite often happens with people maliciously trying to misrepresent Government policy.
Sir Paul Beresford
I was tempted to rise because the previous intervention was made by an hon. Friend who was a political adviser to me when I was a local government Minister. He assisted us in deciding whether it was appropriate, with regional issues, to make announcements in the areas to which they related rather than in the House of Commons.
Mr Syms
We have to look at the situation realistically. When the Prime Minister goes to the EU to negotiate with other leaders, at the end of that negotiation he stands on a platform next to the Union Jack and the EU flag and announces what has been discussed, what we have agreed with and what we have disagreed with. He sets out how he has been batting for Britain. What we are now saying is that whereas Merkel, Sarkozy or any of the other leaders can put the best face on their negotiation, the British Prime Minister will not be able to do so because he will have to come back here to make a statement, which he does anyway.
Dr Wollaston
Clearly, in that instance, Members of this House hear the statement at the same time as members of the press. If leaks are going to take place, which my hon. Friend is justifying, should they also be to Members at the same time?
Mr Syms
We all watch the news. I suspect that the vast majority of us are addicts of the 24-hour news channels. I keep being criticised by my wife for switching from channel to channel watching what is on the news, on Bloomberg, on ITV and on Sky. We all watch what goes on. Other Government leaders can stand up and announce what they have negotiated, but we are saying to our Prime Minister, “You can’t do that. You’ve got to whiz back here and give a statement.”
Let me give another example. We have a eurozone crisis. The markets are moving faster than the Governments and the political leaders. What happens when there is a eurozone crisis at the end of business on a non-sitting Friday, and the Chancellor has to make a statement before the markets open on Monday, which is a sitting day? Does he sit in the Chamber till 3.30 pm before he sets out what the Government are going to do, or does he make a statement setting out the Government’s emergency plans before the markets open in Europe and in the UK? If we think it is more important for him to speak to the House, he shuts up and people get plastered in the markets.
The reality is that we want Ministers in whom we have confidence and who speak for the majority of the people in the House. They have to command a majority. The Chancellor would have to come here eventually to answer questions about why he had conducted business in a particular way, but modern markets and modern international negotiation sometimes mean that Ministers make statements in press conferences and for the TV, rather than in the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I have some sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is right that we should be realistic about what announcements can be made and when they should be made, but does he accept that the amount of the autumn statement that was leaked was extraordinary? Does he think that is justified?
Mr Syms
Certainly, I found that shocking. I have sat in the House since 1997 and I have to say that the present Government leak a lot less than previous Governments in that time, but it does happen. We have to understand that.
Ministers should make more effort. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, said that we want the Government to make a special effort to come to the House when they can. My point is that in the modern world, with 24-hour news, it is not always possible for them to do that.
Mr Gray
I am extremely puzzled by my hon. Friend’s speech. He said a moment ago that Ministers should come here when they can. His position is a great deal more extreme than that of the Government. The Government have said that Ministers will always come here and will always make important statements here. My hon. Friend seems to be suggesting that they should sometimes decide not to do so. I am afraid he is probably on his own in the House today.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am an exact contemporary of my hon. Friend and it seems to me that, comparing what happened under the previous Government and what happens under this Government, he is absolutely right about the quantity of leaking, which was enormous under the previous Government. The trouble is that the leaking under the present Government is getting more and more specific. I remember, when I complained about leaks by the previous Government, one of the Deputy Speakers saying to me, “Well, it could have been a case of intelligent anticipation by the media of what the Government and the Minister were going to say.” With the sort of leaking that is going on now, there is no question of that. It is straightforward, direct and specific. The logical conclusion of what my hon. Friend is saying is that we should tear up the ministerial code. If he thinks that is the case, he ought to advocate that.
Mr Syms
I am not advocating that at all. All I am saying is that sometimes in the real world briefings are needed to set out the context and background of Government policy, because there are many complex political problems, for example in relation to the financial markets or pensions, in relation to which journalists want to know where the Government are coming from. Sometimes journalists speculate or, as we all know, make things up. I know most of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and I know that they do their best to keep the House informed. The House must keep on its toes to ensure that Ministers keep to the ministerial code where they can when they come here, but that is not always possible. I am against having a set protocol, which I do not think would work for the reasons I have set out.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I understand the practicalities of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it appears to me, as a relatively new Member, that the vast majority of leaks to the press are on matters that are not desperate, will not cause problems in our markets and about which it would be quite reasonable to expect Ministers to speak to the House first.
Mr Syms
Ministers might listen to this debate and improve their conduct in front of the House, but it is easy to criticise their behaviour and bring in a protocol that will make life a lot more difficult for Ministers who are batting for Britain and doing their best in difficult circumstances. We live in a very unsafe and unsure world. Our Prime Minister and others are going to negotiate in Brussels, and our Treasury Ministers are doing their best to keep Britain out of the storm caused by the eurozone. Parliament ought to accept that they are doing their best for Britain and give them more backing.
Business of the House
Robert Syms Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I am getting e-mails from people who think that the fair fuel motion on the Downing street website is what we are debating next Tuesday, but of course we are debating a different fair fuel motion. Is not this misleading people that they are getting something that they are not, and should not we review the whole e-petition process and perhaps the way that the Backbench Business Committee gives out business?
Sir George Young
There is a commitment to review the work of the Backbench Business Committee, which could embrace the issue of e-petitions. It is the case that an e-petition will not be debated, either here or in Westminster Hall, unless it is adopted by a Member, and the Backbench Business Committee then has the freedom, along with the Member who has presented the petition, to decide on what basis the debate should take place; and it might then be, as my hon. Friend said, a different debate. When we review e-petitions and the Backbench Business Committee, we could see whether there should be the latitude that we have at the moment or whether an e-petition should be debated automatically, regardless of whether any Member of Parliament wishes to put the motion forward.