Standing Orders (Public Business)
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to reply to this lively debate. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for their considered contributions. I shall try to address as many points as I can.
The thrust of these proposals has been in our manifesto for the last three elections. The journey within Parliament started with the McKay commission and it continued with the Command Paper, which was debated in the last Parliament and whose proposals were in our manifesto this year. As I reminded Members in the summer, the official Opposition were invited to participate in drawing up proposals last year, but they declined to do so.
Over the last few months, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have engaged with Members across the House since our proposals were introduced in this Session. We have listened, reflected and provided extra time for debate. There were debates on 7 July and 15 July, and we have modified our proposals to reflect those debates and discussions, and indeed the work of the Procedure Committee.
Certain themes arose in hon. Members’ contributions, including cross-border issues, Barnett consequentials, certification and, indeed, the future of the Union. I shall try to address issues that were not covered earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I shall speak briefly to the amendments.
Dr Coffey
I am sorry, but I need to get through my response to what has been said today. If I have any time at the end, I will see if I can take any interventions.
On amendment (a), the Government have been very clear that we do not believe that having a Joint Committee is the right approach in this instance. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, these proposals are about Standing Orders in this House, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already invited the Lords Constitution Committee to submit to the review that he intends to set up, and we know that the review is happening with the Procedure Committee.
On amendment (e) and the timing, these proposals build on the work of the former Leader of the House, and we believe it important to implement the proposals now in tandem with further devolution. As everybody knows, we have invited the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the proposals next year, and I have been clear that we welcome this as a review period rather than a pilot after which these proposals would simply fall, as my right hon. Friend explained.
I turn now to amendments (f) and (g). I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House will recognise that many of the amendments he has tabled are indeed consequential. Trying to combine something as being minor “and” consequential as opposed to minor “or” consequential might seem like a deceptively simple change, but it has profound consequences for the amendments that might be needed.
I can offer the hon. Gentleman the example of the Children and Families Act 2014. Section 3 refers to an adoption agency. We changed the criterion because we listened to the view of the Welsh Assembly Government. We tabled a consequential amendment so that the provision took effect only in England, as opposed to England and Wales. That is the kind of issue that we consider to be consequential, and not minor. We therefore do not believe that the amendments should be accepted.
Dr Coffey
Our proposals balance the principle of English consent for English measures with MPs from all parts of the United Kingdom continuing to deliberate and vote together. Removing the proposed consent motions for the Legislative Grand Committee stage would fundamentally undermine the process that is being proposed, and the same applies to further stages.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) raise the issue of Welsh-only votes. In our proposals, we are not talking about matters that are still reserved to this Parliament; we are talking about matters that have been devolved elsewhere. That is why we believe that the hon. Gentleman’s proposals do not stand.
I recognise the cross-border issues that have been raised by Members representing Welsh constituencies. We have met previously and debated the matter specifically, but let me emphasise that every Member will continue, in legislative terms, to participate in Second Reading debates, in Report stages—when they can table amendments —and in Third Reading debates, as they do now.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 44 of the Housing and Planning Bill. Of course it will be for the Speaker to determine the certification of the clause, but it is making a change that applies to England on a matter that is already devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the information that the Government will provide on the clause.
As for the small number of Divisions, I believe that, unlike the last Labour Government, we have kept up the pace of devolution—we have published a Scotland Bill and a Wales Bill—so the issue will come up increasingly in the future.
The Speaker already certifies money Bills and selects amendments. I am sure that he will take advice on what should be a technical decision, as he does now. We agree with the Procedure Committee that the Speaker should be able to appoint two members of the Panel of Chairs to examine that advice, and we modified our proposals accordingly.
Let me now say something about Barnett consequentials. Spending is voted on through the estimates, which are given effect by law—by the Supply and Appropriation Bill, on which all Members voted. Many individual pieces of legislation lead to some changes in funding, but that does not necessarily mean that the funding for the UK Government Department changes. It does not follow that it has a directly identifiable impact on the block grant to the devolved Administrations, so efficiencies in one area could be redirected to front-line services without Barnett consequentials. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reiterating that point.
The voting arrangements on the block grant allocations awarded to the devolved Administrations are unchanged by the introduction of this process. The Government recognise the importance of the House voting as a whole on how money from the Consolidated Fund is allocated. That is why the supply estimates process and money resolutions will not be subject to this process.
The funding implications of individual pieces of legislation do not exist in isolation. Efficiency savings, or indeed additional expenditure, could be connected to one piece of legislation, and could be directed back to other front-line services. When we have increased spending, as happened with free school meals, we look for efficiencies elsewhere.
Scrutiny of the individual supply estimates is mainly undertaken by departmental Select Committees, supported by the parliamentary Scrutiny Unit. When I was a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we certainly undertook that process. The Liaison Committee then chooses the subjects for debate. Following the debates, the estimates are approved by resolution of the House of Commons, as has happened in the past. That is why Barnett consequentials are calculated on changes to overall departmental spending at spending reviews and why we end up voting on the estimates voting process.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said that this proposal adds complexity and will be difficult to follow. What members of the public will find incredible is that the Labour party seeks to deny that effective voice to the people of England. What our standing orders give effect to is that legislation on a matter that is devolved to another Parliament and that affects England or England and Wales only requires the explicit consent of MPs representing those countries only. My hon. Friends have discussed fairness. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) recognised, we need to address this issue. This is a point of fairness. This is about strengthening the Union. This is about fulfilling our manifesto commitments, and I commend this motion to the House.
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I welcome the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) to her place.
The motion seeks to approve the House of Commons members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I have said, these names have been agreed by the Committee of Selection, and they would join the Members of the House of Lords who were appointed by that House on 16 July 2015. The motion is being considered tonight, under Standing Order No. 15(1)(c), having been objected to when it was first put to the House on Monday 14 September.
This is an important Committee that in the previous Parliament considered issues such as UK compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child, human rights judgments and violence against women and girls, as well as undertaking pre and post-legislative scrutiny of many Bills. I therefore encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to support this motion. I commend it to the House.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot understand it. We are allowed on practically every institution and Committee of the House, and we are prepared to serve assiduously on them. We want to be part of this Committee. We have something to contribute. Why are we being excluded? Why is the House happy with our exclusion?
Dr Coffey
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the second Opposition party in the last Parliament was the Democratic Unionist party, because the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. As for the Committee, this House gets six members and the other place has six. He will be aware that when Committees get to seven or above, that is when the second Opposition party gains a seat.
Pete Wishart
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, but here is an obvious solution: why not change the rules? Why are we bound to having parity with the unelected, absurd House down there, which represents absolutely nobody? She represents a constituency, and I represent a constituency. We represent real people and have an interest in a Committee of this place; they represent absolutely nobody. It is an absurd and ridiculous institution that should have no parity with this House.
There are 12 places on this Committee. There are six Conservative Members and four Labour Members. Who is next? There is one Liberal Democrat and one Cross Bencher. Now, we have just had an election, and the Liberal Democrats, roundly thrashed and rejected by the vast majority of the country, were left with a rump of eight MPs. Yet the Liberal Democrats have been given a place on this Committee, ahead of the third party of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party with a 56-seat victory in the last election. How can that possibly be right?
There is even a Cross Bencher on the Joint Committee. I do not even know what Cross Benchers do. I think they are somehow supposed to be neutral or arbitrary, and are appointed on the basis of the greatness and goodness they bring, but why is a Cross Bencher ahead of directly elected Members from the third party of this House? I ask again, how can this possibly be right?
What really gets me about this affair is that this Committee is vitally important. Mr Speaker, I know that you take a keen interest in the working of the Joint Committee. It exists to scrutinise Government Bills for compatibility with human rights, to scrutinise the Government’s response to judgments on human rights and, importantly, it looks for opportunities to enhance human rights across the United Kingdom. Surely this House wants the third party of the UK to play a part in that process. I simply cannot understand why it would not want that to happen.
Mike Weir
Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is actually worse than that? Only this week, it appears that the Government have been threatening to suspend the House of Lords because it did not want to accept what the Government wanted to do with tax credits. Now, however, the other place is more important than us when it comes to membership of this important Committee.
Dr Coffey
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise that SNP Members are having a debate, but we are supposed to be discussing Members from the House of Commons who are going to sit on this Committee. Membership of the House of Lords is a different matter and one for the other end of the corridor.
Mr Speaker
In establishing the background to, and context of, the present debate, it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to say something about factors that he thinks might be informing—rightly or wrongly, in his judgment—the composition of the Committee. However, there is a difference between establishing the context and a tendency to dilate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to dilate on the matter of the Lords make-up of this Committee, or to theorise about the possible injurious effect on SNP chances of being on that Committee as a consequence of not taking up seats in the House of Lords. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman should be concerned is the Commons contribution to, and Commons Members of, this Joint Committee, which I think is quite sufficient for his eloquent dilation.
House Business Committee
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and to respond to the debate on the creation of a House Business Committee. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)on securing this debate? Although I recognise that I might not be about to relieve his frustration, I am sure that he will understand, as he said, the points that I intend to make.
The Government’s position on the creation of a House Business Committee remains as set out in an answer to a parliamentary question tabled in July by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, which it may be helpful to read out:
“There was an absence of consensus on this issue at the end of the previous Parliament, and there is still no consensus at the beginning of this Parliament. The Government therefore have no intention to bring forward proposals.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 448.]
That remains the Government’s position and although this could be a short speech, I want to add something to that response, including comments on some issues raised during this debate.
I will start by addressing the issue of a House Business Committee directly. During the previous Parliament, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee proposed a House Business Committee, based around the idea of a consultative committee, from a list of several different options. I think that five or six options were put forward and one was plumped for. By its own admission, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recognised that each of its proposals for a House Business Committee had
“virtues as well as disadvantages”,
and it had concerns that it did not wish to do anything that
“would undermine the advances already made”
on the reform agenda.
While the principle of a House Business Committee has its supporters, agreement on its purpose, function and composition has been lacking. It is fair to say that a typical week in the House since 2010 gives the Government two days in the Chamber to progress their legislative agenda, with a day for Opposition scrutiny and another for Back-Bench nominated, House-controlled business. Those supporting the creation of a House Business Committee need to address the issue of its purpose and to answer the question of what deficiencies in the current system it would address.
When Lord Lansley was Leader of the House, he set out a number of tests that any Committee would need to meet to be able to operate effectively and add value to our current arrangements. Those tests are still valid. In particular, such a Committee must
“provide Government control of its legislative programme; respect the remit of the Backbench Business Committee; take into account the views of all parts of the House without becoming unwieldy in size; co-ordinate business with the House of Lords; and retain the flexibility to change the business at short notice in response to fast-moving events.”
As he said then, he was not able to identify a proposal that met those tests, nor did he suggest a means of doing so. The hon. Member for Nottingham North will be aware that we did not agree with the option that was suggested. There has certainly been a wide diversity of views in support of different options. Indeed, I recall the passing words of the former shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle):
“All I would say is I look forward with a great deal of interest to how you square the circle of the House Business Committee.”
That remains true today.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and not reading her prepared speech. The situation is that this was in the coalition agreement—the bible of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and the Prime Minister. How on earth could it have got in the bible if it had not been thought through and agreed? I do not think that my hon. Friend’s speech is career enhancing if she is going against what the Prime Minister wants.
Dr Coffey
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend is interested in the future of my career. At the time, the noble Lord Lansley said that, yes, it had been in the coalition agreement but that he feared he would not be able to effect it because he had not been able to find a model that satisfied those tests. The tests are still valid. Could such a Committee co-ordinate the business of the House of Lords? How would a weekly meeting react to fast-changing events and the need to change business at short notice? How could it represent all Back Benchers without becoming unwieldy in size?
The current system gives every Back Bencher a weekly opportunity to hold the Leader of the House to account for the proposed business, to question him on that business and to make requests for future business. The previous coalition Government gave evidence to the PCRC on the large amount of consultation that had been undertaken and on the diversity of views that had been expressed, none of which fulfilled the tests or looked capable of securing consensus.
I remind Members of the positive reforms and developments in the last Parliament, which should be rightly celebrated. A PCRC report in the last Parliament considered the impact of reform and welcomed the progress that had been made since 2009—indeed, we voted for most of the reforms in 2010. The PCRC stated:
“There have been clear advances in the effectiveness of Commons select committees… The Backbench Business Committee has been a success and we welcome the good working relationships which it has established with the business managers”.
We should also consider our recent experience of scrutinising legislation. There have been an increased number of multi-day Report stages—there were 25 in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, compared with 11 in the previous Parliament. There has been increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, with 17 measures in the last Session being published in draft. We have allocated more time for scrutiny, but four in five Public Bill Committees, 83%, finished early last year, which is more than in the previous year. We have also implemented explanatory statements on amendments.
The House and the Government have not rested on their laurels. Ten of the reforms highlighted by the 2009 House of Commons Reform Committee report related to better engagement with the public. I am pleased that, following collaborative work between the Procedure Committee and the Government, this House agreed to a joint system of e-petitions, thereby meeting the public’s expectation to be able to petition their Parliament and to seek action from their Government in response. The Petitions Committee created in this Parliament as part of the joint package fulfils that expectation. Two debates have been organised by the Committee, including one on Monday led by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), which attracted wide attention.
I am disappointed by the reference of the hon. Member for Nottingham North—dare I say it?—to colleagues being lifeless clones who are just part of the machine. He referred to executive power, and he needs no reminder that the Executive are part of this House. This place may be unusual, although not rare, in not having a separate Executive and legislature, but I do not believe that this is a weak Parliament, far from it. Parliament does hold the Government to account. He referred to legislation being rammed through but, despite what people think, my party has a mandate from winning the election. Nevertheless, it has not been my experience, either as a Back Bencher or as a Minister, that the Government ignore other people; in fact, I find that the Government have listened to people’s views. Debates have been extended and Bills have been amended in Committee and on Report to reflect discussions with other MPs. That is mature politics, unlike what was suggested earlier.
There has already been a large amount of scrutiny on the subject of tonight’s debate, but I am pleased that we are debating it once again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will decide whether some of his colleagues are mindlessly walking through one Lobby or another. The result will be interesting.
I hope that I have addressed the points about the coalition agreement by simply reiterating what the noble Lord Lansley has previously said to the House, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will still be disappointed. I conclude by assuring him, and other Members present, that we will continue to work constructively and positively with the relevant Committees and others on both sides of the House. Ultimately, we are all parliamentarians, and we all fought an election to get here. We are all proud of that and want Parliament to work, but we need to do something feasible that allows scrutiny while allowing the Government to enact their legislative agenda.
Mr Graham Allen
On a point of order, Mr Gapes. Would it be in order to squeak against the steamroller one last time by having a vote?
Summer Adjournment
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a great pleasure to reply to this debate, and I congratulate the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. We heard from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is a local lass made good. She pointed out that our analysis reports are in the post—monitoring 649 subjects for the next five years would keep anyone busy—but, as she also pointed out, she is already busy representing her constituents. She talked about how her constituents helped others, through public services and the work that Department for International Development civil servants do in her constituency. I am sure that she is very proud of them, and they will be proud of her today. I can honestly say that “polo mint city” is a better description than Basingstoke’s, where my first job was, which was known as the doughnut—again, the reference being to roundabouts.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) was right to praise her family’s support during the election campaign—I am sure that she will continue to have a happy marriage. I am really impressed that she is already a Whip; that is fast promotion, indeed. I was a Whip in the previous Parliament.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow denied any relationship to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am sure that together they could each wear the tartan made in the constituency of her hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. You never know: one day we may see a kilt or two in the Chamber, even if it is worn by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with one of your beautiful scarves.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw also mentioned her life experience and referred to balancing the books in her professional life. I gently point out that that is what we are seeking to do, with our long-term economic plan, as we move from deficit to surplus, because at the end of the day we have to balance the books; every accountant knows that.
I will do my best to go through the speeches in turn. In starting the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) rightly brought to the House’s attention the council’s closure of the cattle market, which is to be demolished, with barely a week’s notice, and she pointed out that Derby City Council had not invested in the facility. I have heard this about other councils. It is a great shame that county towns do not recognise the heritage or the living countryside that surrounds them. It is important that county towns act for the entire county, and I suggest that she considers approaching farmers to see whether they could apply to make it an asset of community value, so that if the opportunity to buy the site comes up, they would have the option of doing so. The only other advice I can offer is that she follows this up with our colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether there are other options. In addition, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who has just spoken, will have heard her point or will read it in Hansard.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is not in his place, referred to having a list of speakers at the back of the Speaker’s Chair. The traditional reason for not having one is to ensure that people debate, rather than just read pre-prepared speeches. The very good debate yesterday was an opportunity for people to make different points, rather than necessarily repeating the same ones. I understand that Members all have busy lives, but I particularly enjoy sitting in the Chamber and listening to our debates—I know that you do a lot of that as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue, however, is probably a matter for the Procedure Committee to consider, alongside the review I hope it will conduct into our proposals on Standing Orders.
On English devolution, the hon. Gentleman suggested that because the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, so too should that of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. The Scotland Bill covers not one particular legislative area, however, but the transfer of general areas of responsibility from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced, therefore, that it is necessary to take the other Bill on the Floor of the House, but as always all Members will be able to contribute on Report, even if they were not selected for the Committee. On financial devolution and income tax assignment, he seems to have missed the fact that the coalition Government achieved a lot with the Localism Act 2011. The powers are out there and deals are being done, so I encourage him to work with his local authority in Nottingham and the Greater Nottingham area to take advantage of that.
The hon. Gentleman said that his constituency had the lowest number of people going to university, and I think he mentioned the removal of the maintenance grant. When we made our changes to fees in the last Parliament, it was said that the number of young people going to university would collapse and that people from poorer backgrounds would simply not go, but that has not proven to be the case. What matters, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, is ensuring that children have access to good schools and are not frightened of going to university. In that respect, the early-years preparation she mentioned does matter.
I now move on to the marathon speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). It was quite a canter. In fact, Southend seems to have everything except a racecourse, although I bet he is going to tell me it has a greyhound track. I do know, however, that one gets plenty of exercise if one even attempts to walk up and down the pier, which I think is the longest in the United Kingdom—but most normal human beings take a train from one end to the other.
I want to say something about the Chilcot inquiry. The inquiry, which is completely independent of Government, is examining a range of complex and difficult issues concerning events that ran over a period of about 10 years. Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister on 15 June updating him on the inquiry’s position. Since January, the inquiry has received a large proportion of the responses expected from individuals who were given the opportunity to respond to provisional criticisms—something referred to as the Maxwellisation process. The responses have been constructive, and in some cases they have opened up new issues or highlighted evidence not seen before by the inquiry but which the inquiry is now considering with care.
In the Prime Minister’s reply, he said that he was disappointed that the inquiry was not yet able to provide a timetable for completion of its report; and as soon as Maxwellisation is completed, the Prime Minister expects to receive an update from Sir John on the timescale for the urgent completion of the inquiry. The civil service continues to be under instruction to provide every assistance to the inquiry, and Sir John agreed to meet Sir Jeremy Heywood in accordance with the Prime Minister’s wishes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very keen to see this report published. I know that many around the House are as impatient as he is to get it.
My hon. Friend made a number of different points. On Southend airport and his constituent’s problems with noise pollution, I suggest that if he has not already done so—I am sure he has, as I know he is an assiduous Member—he should contact the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).
On the point about the National Deaf Children’s Society and the allocation of Ofsted inspectors who have experience of the needs of the deaf, the training and allocation of the inspectors is, of course, a matter for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, but I know that this chief inspector takes very seriously the need to ensure that inspectors have the appropriate skills and knowledge to perform their role. I understand that those who inspect specialist provision will have had previous relevant experience in teaching and leadership, and will undertake additional Ofsted training. I am also aware that where a school has a specialist unit for deaf children, inspectors will establish in the pre-inspection conversation with the school whether a British sign language interpreter is required when meetings pupils.
When it comes to mainstream schools, a requirement for all inspectors to have experience or specialist training in respect of people who are deaf or hearing impaired was seen to raise very significant cost and efficiency issues, as well as practical ones. For that reason, I understand that Ofsted has no plans to make further changes to its arrangements at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West referred to the wild animals in circuses Bill. He will know that there was a commitment in our manifesto, and the Government are committed to bringing in this legislation when parliamentary time allows. I am sure he will be pleased to know that the interim licensing scheme is ensuring good welfare for the 18 wild animals being used by the two travelling circuses.
On the NHS agency staff bill, my hon. Friend will be aware of the action already taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is an important issue that probably affects every health trust in all parts of the United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is right to raise it on behalf of his local hospitals.
My hon. Friend referred to the promotion of Southend United. I congratulate the team on that. The last time I saw Southend United play was when I was a parliamentary candidate for Wrexham, and I am afraid Southend lost to Wrexham in the Johnstone’s Paint trophy. All I can say is that Wrexham ain’t anywhere near where Southend United is in the football league nowadays.
I hope I have covered a good number of the points that my hon. Friend raised. He is right to talk about VisitEngland and to want to improve tourism outside London. I am sure he will welcome the fact that as we speak many tourists will be heading up to my constituency to enjoy the Latitude festival. I hope that the weather stays good for them. The sun always shines in Southend, and it usually does in Suffolk, too. I am sure, finally, that other hon. Members will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend, who I am sure will enjoy his investiture at Windsor castle tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) raised a number of points. She mentioned open-cast mines. I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, met Carl Sergeant of the Welsh Assembly Government today to discuss issues relating to open-cast mines, including the Parc Slip west site. My hon. Friend has agreed to have further conversations about options to deal with the site and possible sources of funding.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of continence. I do not know whether the event she mentioned is still happening as we speak—possibly not. I recognise the need for nationwide improvements in continence care. This has led to the continence care programme, which is aligned with the national compassion in practice strategy. NHS England is leading a national programme of work in this area. I am not aware of what is happening in Wales in that regard, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that she can have direct conversations with the appropriate people in the Welsh Assembly Government.
I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration about tier 4 student visas, because there is a similar issue in my constituency. As I am sure she will recognise, acquiring student visas used to be one of the main ways in which people managed to overstay, and I understand that very careful deliberation is taking place about all the different applications that are being made. Nevertheless, I hope that the Home Office will move as quickly as possible to satisfy her local college and, indeed, mine. I am sure that my Home Office colleagues have noted my issue as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked about Equitable Life. I was proud to be part of a governing party that ensured that compensation was provided, and that further compensation was given to those on pension credit. I understand the point that my hon. Friend made, but I am not aware that the Treasury has any plans to extend the compensation regime any further.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern that the public health funds given to councils were not being used for their intended purposes. Public Health England continues to issue targets against which councils are measured, but one of the purposes of giving councils public health funding was to address local needs and ensure the provision of not only immediate but long-term public health benefits, and I think that that should be respected. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any specific local issues, I am sure that he will be able to do so directly, either with my colleagues or with councils themselves.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—or, as she accurately said, “hon. Friend” outside the Chamber —was right to highlight problems relating to traffic jams and productivity. Having checked on my phone earlier, I know that, as we speak, there are just big red lines on the southbound section of the M6 in her constituency. I grew up in Liverpool and some members of my family still live there, while others live in parts of north Wales, so I am a regular traveller up the M6. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration, which is why I do not use that road any more.
According to the Department for Transport, the entry road at junction 9 has been closed to help to prevent gridlock on local roads in Walsall. If the road were kept open, traffic would have to queue to access the M5 link road, which currently has only one lane available owing to vital repair work on the carriageway. Queues would build up quickly and result in heavy congestion on the M6, which would back up into other roads in Walsall—although the hon. Lady seems to think that that is already happening. I understand that Highways England has discussed the matter in depth with Sandwell and Walsall councils, and that they understand the need to prevent needless congestion for local drivers.
The hon. Lady said that no work seemed to be being carried out on the entry road, and she was absolutely right. The road has been closed not so that repairs can be carried out, but with a view to preventing gridlock on the M6 and local roads around Walsall. However, I am sure that the authorities will take careful note of what she has said today, and will look at the issue again.
The hon. Lady mentioned traffic-calming measures in Walstead Road, and the need for a 20 mph zone in Monmouth Road. As she knows, her local council must tackle the issue, but she is has plenty of experience in that regard, and she was right to raise it on behalf of her constituents today.
As for the education centre that the hon. Lady mentioned, I agree with her that it will be a great result. I was not invited to the opening of the centre, so I feel a bit left out, but I shall be sure to go and see it on Monday.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the travel subsidy. Unfortunately for me, it is for those outside the M25. Children from Suffolk do not benefit from the subsidy, and I assure the hon. Lady that those in Lowestoft, which is not in my constituency but 130 miles away, do not benefit from it either. As a result, not many schools in my constituency come here. However, I am sure that the excellent new centre will help.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) spoke passionately about her role as a breast cancer ambassador. She was right to do so, on behalf of her constituents, but also because of the need to continue to raise awareness. The independent cancer taskforce has developed a five-year strategy for cancer services with the aim of improving survival rates and saving more lives. The strategy will recommend improvements along the cancer pathway, and is expected to be published later this month. We will work with the NHS, charities and patient groups to deliver that.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Iran nuclear deal. After more than a decade of tough negotiations, we have reached an historic agreement aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is and remains exclusively peaceful, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be grateful for her praise. She also raised the important issue of the number of older people living alone and the isolation that many of them feel. I am not aware of exactly what we are doing on that, but I am sure that her concerns can be addressed in future Question Time opportunities.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke passionately about the need for social mobility. She referred to the parental link, the privileged professions and the link to private schools. She mentioned early years provision in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education published the annual report on the early years sector for Parliament on 13 July—just a few days ago. It shows a positive picture overall, welcomes the Government’s major new investment in free childcare for working parents and highlights the fact that the quality of all types of early-years provision is at its highest ever. We are absolutely committed to continuing to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which is why we offer 15 hours of completely free childcare.
On the question of social mobility, I can tell the hon. Lady that one of the things that drives this Government is ensuring that every child has a good early start and goes to a good school. We are passionate about keeping that going, because it matters. We only have one chance of being a child and getting that education, and she is right to champion that issue. I can assure her that this Government are on the side of those who want to get on and do the right thing.
The hon. Lady talked about the certificate in knowledge of policing now costing £1,000. It is my understanding that special constables, certainly in the Metropolitan police, do not need the certificate. The Met is also open to providing interest-free loans. I do not particularly want to become a tax lawyer at the Dispatch Box, but my personal experience would lead me to expect that people who see the benefit of investing in such a certificate would be able to deduct the cost as a fully allowable expense.
Siobhain McDonagh
Does the Minister not appreciate that the group of young people I was talking about would not have any knowledge of tax relief? They are people who want to become police officers but who have neither the time to arrange such things, because they are working, nor the ability to say to their parents, “Can I have £1,000 so that I can train and apply for this job?” The certificate simply allows them to apply; it does not guarantee them a job.
Dr Coffey
I recognise what the hon. Lady is saying. Perhaps the way out for some people would be to train as a special in the first place. She also mentioned unpaid work experience, and I recognise the points she made. I am pleased that HMRC is cracking down on unpaid internships; that is the right approach for us to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also covered a wide range of subjects. He talked about broadband “not spots” and the sharing of masts. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary made a breakthrough in March in his negotiations with the phone companies, and it is important that that progress should continue. I hope that my hon. Friend is also benefiting from the mobile infrastructure programme.
My hon. Friend was right to praise the staff at Blackburn hospital for making progress since it received the perhaps not very helpful but nevertheless accurate assessment outlining what needed to be done in the interest of its patients. I also welcome the idea of having a GP surgery at the entrance to the A&E department, to which patients can be sent, if necessary, following triage.
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s part of the northern powerhouse will feel the benefit of half-hourly trains. I wish I could get the same service for Suffolk; it would be a good thing if we at least had trains coming through. I welcome the fact that the pool in Haslingden is reopening thanks to the work of the community group known as HAPPI. I think I misheard him at first, but he did refer to Pharrell Williams, and “Happy” is one of my favourite karaoke songs. I am sure that HAPPI will be able to think about some of the town centre improvements to which my hon. Friend referred. It is vital that we improve our market towns if we are to have prosperity and great places to live and work, and I am sure that he will be a strong champion of the towns in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that he was a fan of country sports, including shooting and fishing. You may have missed this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he announced that he has a licence to shoot, so I guess we are going to re-christen him 007. He was right about the important role of country sports in not only conservation but jobs for local people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) raised the case of one of her constituents in respect of the police and the Home Office, so she should follow it up with the Home Secretary via the usual routes. It would be inappropriate for me to comment while legal proceedings are ongoing. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) highlighted the case of his constituent and mis-selling. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for the work he has done. I believe that a substantial amount of action has been taken by the Financial Conduct Authority and reviews are under way. Some £1.9 billion has been paid out so far. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about consequential losses, and he will not be the only Member who has constituents affected in that way. He is right to press on this point and I am sure the Treasury will be listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the important issue of the violation of human rights in North Korea, a subject that she has championed regularly, and, as she is co-chair of the all-party group on North Korea, I am sure she will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) talked about many rural issues, including the A303, the BT monopoly on broadband—that is what he suggests—and flooding in internal drainage boards. I am sure that now he has been elected as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs he will be able to bring his additional weight to bear on these matters. It is right that we focus on ensuring that rural parts of our country not only get a fair deal but get access to the services and infrastructure we need.
I wanted to answer a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I will not pretend that I know Lincolnshire very well, although I have family who came from there. I know it is a sparsely populated county, and other rural counties will face similar issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government takes seriously issues relating to how rural funding has been addressed. I know that some additional funding was given in order to do that, and I appreciate the campaign to continue that approach. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be tenacious on this, as I know he is. On fair funding for the police in Lincolnshire, we know that the current model for allocating police funding is complex and out of date. That is why we are undertaking a detailed review of the formula and will be launching a consultation on reforming the current arrangements for allocating funding before the end of next week.
On my hon. and learned Friend’s point about corruption, we are applying pressure to our international partners, and that is at the heart of this matter. We are working on the UN convention against corruption in partner countries, and with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on strengthening financial action taskforces around the globe. We have been taking real leadership in these areas, and DFID works with other G8 and G20 members, and through the UN, to strengthen the international architecture to combat corruption and illicit financial flows. I remind the House that the UK took the lead when we chaired the G8 in 2013, implementing a number of measures which have put the UK in a leadership position.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who is no longer in her place, was right to raise the worrying events in her constituency last week. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was kind of you to allow a few people to speak who were not here at the start, because it really matters that people have the opportunity to use this Chamber to raise issues on behalf of their constituents. It is my great pleasure to speak to this Chamber. It is only just a year since I joined the Government, and I want also to thank those who have been—
Dr Coffey
I was about to conclude, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not give way.
I want to thank everyone who has helped all new Members to settle in and the rest of us to settle back into life. It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House, and I believe that only one person has yet to make their maiden speech. People of the pre-2015 intake are delighted at the number of new people who have joined this House and at the quality of the debate that they are bringing to it. I also want to thank the people who work for me in my constituency and my staff, those before the election and the ones now. Without all our staff, we would not be in a great place in order to serve our constituents in the way we do.
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a great recess, when I am sure you will be working hard in your constituency of Epping Forest, too.
Mrs Moon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate to ask to put on the record the thanks of everyone who has taken part in this debate for the very full and thorough reply that we have all received from the Deputy Leader of the House. To be honest, I have never heard such a fantastic response from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and we all owe her a great thank you.
English Votes for English Laws
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian C. Lucas
What they will prevent me from doing is putting down amendments in Committee.
Ian C. Lucas
They will. They will prevent me from putting down amendments in Committee and voting in the Legislative Grand Committee (England). That is entirely the proposal. It will exclude me from the Legislative Grand Committee. It is limiting my right to speak on behalf of my constituents.
Ian C. Lucas
Criminal justice matters are not devolved.
If such a position were conceded by the Government, then because, unfortunately for the Government, most MPs in Wales are Labour, a Welsh criminal justice Bill dealing with this issue could pass through Parliament only if we had double voting for MPs from Wales with the consent of the Opposition. The implications of that are enormous.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I think the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) is making is that because the Welsh language with regard to the Welsh courts is a devolved matter, it is likely that the UK Government would be unable to legislate on it unless we had the consent of the Welsh Assembly.
Ian C. Lucas
That is an ingenious but wrong argument, because criminal justice matters are matters for this House.
I am giving just one example. I could give more, but I do not want to be here all day. I have read these Standing Orders—I have even highlighted them—and I can go through them and produce other examples.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Lady might like to take up that issue with her right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who I think shares my view. Let me quote from the annual report of the Countess of Chester hospital:
“We are the main Trust serving Western Cheshire and provide services to approximately 30% of the population covered by the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board in Wales. Welsh patients represent approximately one fifth of the workload of the Trust.”
Dr Thérèse Coffey
The right hon. Gentleman would be able to table amendments in Committee. I accept that he would not be able to move them, but he would be able to table amendments on Report, as well.
Mr Hanson
The Minister makes the point: I cannot vote on tabled amendments that I have moved in Committee, which I can do now. I can walk through that door to do so now, and I have done for 23 years, being accountable only to my constituents and my colleagues in the Whips Office. I have been accountable to my constituents and my party. I can do this now, but the Deputy Leader of the House is taking away from me a right, which my constituents voted for on 7 May, to speak on any matter in this House. It is important that the Deputy Leader of the House understands that argument, although I am grateful to her for meeting a delegation of north Wales Members and me yesterday.
What matters in Cheshire matters to me—not only in respect of hospital services, but of employment, when my constituents work there, and transport. Is HS2 an England-only matter, for example? The train service will go to Crewe, which will link to north Wales, so it matters to my constituents. The key point is how these matters are to be decided. Who decides what is an “English-only” matter? The draft Standing Orders say:
“The Speaker shall, before second reading”.
What opportunity do I have to put it to the Speaker that there are real issues in my constituency that make it right for me to table amendments and vote on them? What representations can I make on those issues?
Patricia Gibson
I heartily concur with my hon. Friend. I hope that people in Scotland watching the debate on the Parliament channel will draw the inevitable conclusion.
Let us be clear that changes to Standing Orders almost always go through Committee scrutiny first, usually in the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has noted in a point of order that were such changes to be made without scrutiny,
“any majority Government could change Standing Orders to restrict the voting rights of any Member without so much as a by-your-leave.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 65.]
Mr Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, replied that it was “an extremely important point”.
Let me give some more context. We know that changes to Scotland’s block grant are made in line with UK spending changes on the basis of population percentages. The funding policy states that
“the system of devolved finance is subject to overall UK macroeconomic and fiscal policy.”
The system of devolved finance is, in fact, fully contingent on English finance. It is also a one-way street; Scottish Bills do not affect England, but English Bills may very well affect Scotland. Government Members have consistently refused to recognise that throughout this debate.
The former Member for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague, acknowledged as much when he said:
“we recognise that the level of spending on health and local government in England is a legitimate matter for all MPs, as there are consequential effects on spending for the rest of the UK”.
The McKay commission pointed out that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 largely applied to England but had appreciable effects on commitments to public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even though health and social care is a devolved matter. It concluded:
“Any reforms undertaken to respond to English concerns must therefore be mindful of possible impacts outside England and seek to mitigate such impacts.”
In addition to Barnett consequentials, other, more general financial consequences can arise. For instance, if earned income was redefined, Scottish income tax revenues would be affected. There is a perennial question that I have not heard any Conservative Member answer: we still cannot get a logical definition of what qualifies as an England-only or an England and Wales-only Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was told in response to a letter to the Leader of the House that the Scotland Bill would qualify as an England-only Bill. That demonstrates how ludicrous this whole debate is. How insulting to Scotland is that?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
The hon. Lady will recognise that the Government realised there was a problem with that and it has been corrected. I believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has a letter to that effect.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Lady, but that merely demonstrates the indecent haste with which this whole enterprise has been cobbled together.
Graham Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What happened is on the record in Hansard—silence from the Government; they have no answers. I gave the Leader of the House the opportunity.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I can say that Barnett consequentials do not impact on direct pieces of legislation, but I will explain more in my winding-up speech.
Graham Jones
I did not catch the first part of the answer. Will the Minister repeat it more clearly?
Graham Jones
It would be nice to have that information. It is not present at the minute, but I am glad that the Minister is at least having a look at it. Perhaps the explanation she gives will be unsatisfactory. She may have just made some notes and intends to put it in her speech just because someone has raised it, reinforcing the fact that this is a complete mess. Amendments that have consequentials might go before an English-only Committee. What happens then? I leave that with the Minister and will be interested to hear what she has to say.
Finally, the Government do not seem to appreciate that if we end up in a situation where there is an English Conservative majority but a Unionist Labour majority, legislation could be stifled. The Government may say that there is a resolution to the problem or that that is how this place operates in our democracy. The Minister should be mindful of the fact that if the problems are not resolved, regions such as mine in the north of England will quickly get fed up with voting for a Labour Government, getting a Labour Government but not being able to pass Labour legislation because it is blocked by English Conservative MPs.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to reply to this debate, and particularly to hear two maiden speeches. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who showed that he will be a powerful champion for south-west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. I enjoyed holidays in Mousehole as a child. I now recognise in my own constituency some of the challenges he identified in his, particularly the pay gap in some of the industries there. I am sure he will work hard to rectify that.
We also heard an excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who mentioned the resilience of the people she represents and the proud history of those who have served them, as well as the people who got her into this place. I am sure that she will go down as the biggest swinger in town, but it will be for her dramatic effect as well as for her result. I was very impressed by her late brother’s encouragement to run for Parliament. That has been justified, and I am sure he would have been very proud of her today.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their considered contributions, and I will try to address as many points as I can. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I continue to be happy to hear the views of colleagues outside the Chamber too. I am grateful to the all of two Members who attended the drop-in sessions, and for the meeting I had with MPs from north Wales to discuss matters in further detail.
Certain themes arose in hon. Members’ contributions, including the solution of an English Parliament, a constitutional convention, whether we should have legislation, the McKay commission, and the process we are going through and its timing. Some Members felt that this is a non-issue, saying that it is partisan and would lead to gridlock. There were important discussions about Speaker certification, spending consequentials, and, of course, the impact on the Union. I will address those points in turn.
It is fair to say that Conservative Members do not believe that there is a need for an English Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) was annoyed that people who do not represent English constituencies felt that was the solution to the issue we face today, and I agree with her. Indeed, when the English Democrats have stood in elections, they have not managed to get any MPs elected, so there is not much appetite for that among English constituents.
I know that the constitutional convention has been discussed widely. It was voted down in Committee when it was tabled as an amendment to the Scotland Bill. Again, I am not sure that we need to have one to address this issue. I am concerned that it would be a handbrake on some of the devolution agreed to in the vow before the Scottish referendum. Other people have talked about things such as a written constitution, but we do not believe that that is necessary at this time.
Dr Coffey
I want to get through my speech and perhaps take interventions a bit later if that is okay.
Legislation has been mentioned. We genuinely have concerns, as do the Clerks of the House, about whether this risks being justiciable. That said, several representations have been made in debates. The Government are not ruling it out, but we do not believe that it would be the right vehicle to do this. That might be something for the Procedure Committee to look at. If it does not necessarily do so in its short investigation, it is more likely to do so during the one that will take the 12 months before we review the process, as we have agreed to do.
Alex Salmond
On the subject of reflection, and in the interests of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and me, the explanatory notes distributed yesterday state:
“Any bills that the Speaker has certified as England-only in their entirety will be considered by only English MPs at committee stage.”
Given what the Leader of the House told us earlier, does the Deputy Leader of the House want to make a drafting amendment to that claim?
Dr Coffey
I will come to that point during my speech, and I hope that my response will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
The McKay commission was established, and the Government replied to it in their Command Paper issued in December 2014. The Conservative party laid out a range of options, which we subsequently put in our manifesto. We are now debating a simplified version of option 3. The key principles of McKay referred to two things. When he reported in 2013, his main conclusion was that decisions
“with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England and Wales).”
That is from paragraph 12 of the executive summary of the report, which concluded:
“This principle should be adopted by a resolution of the House of Commons and the generalised principle endorsed.”
We believe that that is fulfilled by these Standing Orders. The McKay commission gave a variety of options.
Dr Coffey
I will not if that is okay, because I am trying to respond to the points made in the debate. [Interruption.] It is not an unfair quote; it is from paragraph 12.
I just want to be clear because I am a little confused by what the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said. He seemed to accept the principle of an England-only Committee or an England and Wales-only Committee, despite having agreed earlier with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that that would exclude him from something, so I am a little confused about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for debate. There is clearly disagreement in the House. That disagreement will have to stand.
Dr Coffey
I am simply quoting directly from the report.
My understanding is that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), as part of his oral evidence, recognised that if all Scottish MPs chose not to participate on English-only matters, the commission was not necessary. He said that given that that does not happen all the time—admittedly, that was under a different electoral scenario—there is
“a procedure and a process which is part of the rules of how we engage in issues which are English-only”.
He felt that the commission needed to answer that.
It has been claimed that this is a rushed process, that it is a non-issue and that these are partisan proposals, but the thrust of the proposals has been in our manifesto for the last three elections. The journey started with McKay, it continued with the Command Paper and the proposals were in our manifesto. Since coming back to the House, we have listened, reflected and given extra time for debate. There will be at least two months between the initial tabling of our proposals on 2 July and the decision by this House. In comparison, the Smith commission, although convened in September, started on 22 October and managed to conclude its significant piece of work within six weeks. That is the basis of the Scotland Bill in which the UK Parliament is transferring powers to the Scottish Parliament.
This is not a non-issue; it is an issue for several of my electors. We are ultimately addressing a question of fairness. It is claimed that the proposals are partisan, but it so happens that every Government elected since 1997—back when the Labour party used to win elections—have had a majority of English MPs, although in 2005 Labour received fewer votes in England than the Conservatives. We are trying to address an issue of fairness. I know that the Library papers say that only a few Divisions have happened where this would have been an issue, but we are still trying to address that issue.
There is no need for there to be gridlock. If it is evident that explicit consent will not be granted in the Legislative Grand Committee after Report stage, it would be a perfectly rational expectation that the Government would listen to the voices of those MPs for England or England and Wales, and would not try to impose something against their will in respect of those devolved matters.
I will turn to the subject of Speaker certification.
Ms Eagle
If the distribution of English local government grants is not voted for, no money can be distributed. The Government’s proposals will allow an English minority, who may be in opposition, to prevent a Government from distributing money to local government. How is that a recipe for anything other than gridlock?
Dr Coffey
We believe that it is a fair response to say that when the matter is providing finances for English councils, the majority of English MPs should agree to how that is done. I recognise that the hon. Lady may not like that, but when she was in government, it so happened that her party had a majority of English MPs.
Turning to Speaker certification, a lot of people have mentioned the burden—
Dr Coffey
I will not give way.
On Speaker certification, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) referred to in his contribution, the Speaker already certifies money Bills and selects amendments. I am sure that, as he does now, he will take advice on what should be a technical decision.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said at the McKay commission on behalf of the SNP:
“We look at each bill, as we get the business for the week, we assess it for the Scottish interest. If there is none or if it’s insignificant, we take no interest… We have never had the problem. 12 years since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, we have had the self denying ordinance and found it about the most easiest thing possible to do and we do not see what the fuss is.”
I recognise the cross-border issues that have been raised by hon. Members from north Wales. We met yesterday and we debated the issues the other week. There has been a request to amend Standing Orders to set out the timing of decisions and the ability to make representations. Those parts of the process are not detailed in Standing Orders for other certification processes, but I understand why hon. Members raise this point. I understand that such things happen in practice and they may be in “Erskine May”. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to put them in Standing Orders, but it is up to hon. Members to make their suggestions.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Lady will remember that when the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was being discussed in the last Parliament there were proposals for the Speaker to make determinations about what would or would not be a confidence motion that could or could not effectively terminate the Parliament, and it was argued by Conservatives that the Speaker should not be put in the position of making a politically sensitive determination.
Dr Coffey
I think the Speaker is more than well equipped and will certainly have the advice available to do that.
Let us turn to the spending consequentials. As a result of discussions and debate, we have listened and tabled Standing Orders that we believe clarify the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, we have done this to give comfort to all Members. Spending is voted on through the estimates and, yes, in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), amendments can be made to the estimates, though only to lower spending because Crown Ministers have the right of financial initiative. Estimates are given effect by law, by the Supply and Appropriation Bill, both of which we have all voted on in the past 24 hours.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) referred to income tax definition. Aspects of income tax which have not been devolved, whether they are reliefs or the definition of taxable income, would continue to be UK matters. It is the rates and the thresholds that are in the process of being devolved.
On Bills and Barnett consequentials, many individual pieces of legislation lead to some changes in funding, but that does not necessarily mean that the funding for that UK Government Department changes. It does not follow that it has a directly identifiable impact on the block grant to the devolved Administrations, so efficiencies in one area could be redirected to front-line services, without Barnett consequentials. That is why Barnett consequentials are calculated on changes to overall departmental spending at spending reviews, and that is why we end up voting on them through the estimates voting process.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) referred to tuition fees. I think he was probably referring to the resource accounting and budgeting charge—the RAB charge. That is a non-cash item so it does not affect the spending power of the Scottish Government.
Dr Coffey
I will not give way any more as I am trying to address the other points. [Interruption.] We have another day of debate, as has been said.
The hon. Member for Wrexham wanted to talk about Welsh votes going further. We are talking about matters that have been devolved, not matters that are still reserved in this Parliament. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is not in his place, referred to parades. Again, those are still a reserved matter, not a devolved matter. He also spoke about the Olympics funding. The Olympics funding was excluded from Barnett calculations because it was deemed nationally important for the entire United Kingdom. The joint ministerial council subsequently reached agreement to allocate some additional funding. Funding then went through estimates and, as the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned, he was the Finance Minister at the time.
Dr Coffey
The lords are peers of the United Kingdom and a sovereign House, so they should determine their own Standing Orders. They are not elected to represent constituencies. There are no peers of Scotland or of Wales.
There was quite a lot of reference to the Scotland Bill. I remind hon. Members that it is a constitutional Bill through which we are transferring powers from this UK Parliament and this UK Government to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. That is why it is appropriate for everybody to vote on that.
A list of Bills was mentioned. Amendments were made on Report stage of the Modern Slavery Bill, which could perhaps have been made in the Scottish Parliament separately. That triggered the need for the legislative consent motion, but they were not included at the time of the introduction of the Bill.
Strengthening the Union is probably the most important point. I know that SNP members respect the fact that their fellow countrymen and women voted to stay as part of the Union. The Government’s proposals seek to strike a careful balance. They are a modest step but we will give a clear and distinctive voice to the representatives of English and Welsh constituents on issues that are devolved, and preserve the right of MPs across the House to play a role in shaping that legislation. The Government continue to listen to the views of the House and we look forward to returning to this after the summer recess. We hope to implement an important change to give voice to England and to strengthen the Union, I hope, with cross-party support. From some of the things that have been said today, it is clear that the Labour party needs to make up its mind on the issue. It does not seem to want to do that, but we will vote for these proposals with great confidence in the autumn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of English votes for English laws.
Oral Answers to Questions
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
7. What plans he has to consult the public in advance of the House’s decision on English votes on English laws.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s proposals were published on Thursday 2 July. Both before and after publication, there have been extensive discussions with colleagues from across the House, and such discussions will continue before the debate next week. This Government were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to deliver English votes for English laws, and opinion polls have indicated support for this principle in both England and Scotland.
Mr Hanson
The Government promised to consult the Procedure Committee before the debate next Wednesday. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what discussions will take place with the Procedure Committee before any decision on the changes? Will she agree to meet an all-party delegation from north Wales to discuss the implications in our area?
Dr Coffey
I had the pleasure of responding to a debate on the effect of EVEL on north Wales, and I would be very happy to meet anybody concerned. I will today send out an email about drop-in sessions for any MP who wants to talk about the proposals in further detail. In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to the answer just given by my right hon. Friend.
Justin Madders
In her initial answer, the Deputy Leader of the House referred to opinion polls as part of the consultation process. Does she agree that a poll is not a genuine consultation, but simply a gauging of opinion?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The proposals in the manifesto covered public Bills. Why do the Government’s current proposals not cover private Members’ Bills, which are of course public Bills?
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In the light of the Government’s sudden and welcome change of approach to EVEL next week, will the Deputy Leader of the House outline how they intend to ensure that full and proper consultation takes place on a genuinely cross-party basis on this very important and difficult constitutional issue?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made approaches to other parties. We are holding the open drop-in sessions—[Interruption.] Well, they are consultation sessions. I am not aware that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) has approached me or the Leader of the House to have those conversations. I have already responded to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I remind the official Opposition that last autumn they were invited to have discussions, but they declined to do so.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
4. What his policy is on the voting rights of hon. Members in the House.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s proposals, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring, would ensure that all MPs voted on legislation—on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. The Government’s proposals would ensure, however, that English and Welsh MPs, when they are affected, would consent to the new laws that affect only their constituents on subjects that are devolved elsewhere.
Ian Blackford
The Minister mentioned the opinion poll of the general election on 7 May. All Members from my party were voted in with full rights to represent the interests of our constituents. That is what the Government’s proposals seek to take away. Also, she talks about a veto for English and Welsh MPs, but does she not recognise that we have a mandate from the Scottish people to implement home rule? It is the veto of Government Members that is stopping the people of Scotland getting their express wishes.
Dr Coffey
The people of Scotland voted to stay part of the Union last year. I respect the fact that the SNP have 56 MPs, but I would point out that in considering the Scotland Bill we are not debating individual Bills: we are debating the powers that will be transferred from the remit of the UK Parliament and Government to the Scottish Parliament and Government. That is a two-way conversation, and that is why all Members of the House may express their views during that deliberation.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
5. If he will take steps to establish a House business committee; and if he will make a statement.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
There was an absence of consensus on this issue at the end of the previous Parliament, and there is still no consensus at the beginning of this Parliament. The Government therefore have no intention of bringing forward proposals.
Mr Allen
I warmly welcomed the proposal in the Conservative party’s 2010 manifesto for a House business committee. The consensus that the Minister mentions is one between the two Front Benches—the Government and the alternative Government. Will she consider the interests of Parliament in allowing it to have at least some small say in setting its own agenda?
Dr Coffey
The reforms that were voted on at the beginning of the 2010 Parliament gave much more time to Back-Bench business, to debate matters topical to Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman will also note that we voted at the end of the last Parliament to add extra time in Westminster Hall for consideration of matters determined by Members of Parliament.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is absolutely right. The mother of Parliaments is grown up enough to run its own affairs, and the only disagreement is from the two Front Benches, who do not want to give up power. If we pass only legislation that has consent, we will get nothing through. That is an abject failure. We need a House business committee, so why not at least put it on the agenda, have a debate and let the House decide?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Many people in many parts of the UK are tied into mobile phone contracts, but they receive poor or little service. Will the Leader of the House give us a debate in Government time on that important issue to allow those people—
English Votes for English Laws and North Wales
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate. The title of the debate could have led to a wide range of contributions about any aspect of North Wales, although given my connections with the area, I would have felt confident addressing some of those possible queries, and that is not just because I was a candidate in Wrexham in 2005. My mother grew up there, my relatives lived there, I went to school there and, indeed, my father is buried there, so I can assure hon. Members from North Wales and from across the border that North Wales is never far from my mind or, indeed, my heart.
Updating arrangements in this House to reflect the changing nature of the devolution settlement is important. To that end, this has been a useful and interesting debate. As promised in the Queen’s Speech, the Government will bring forward changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to ensure that decisions affecting England, or England and Wales, can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those parts of the United Kingdom. We do that in the context of further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government have demonstrated that they will meet their commitments to devolve further powers to those countries. It is right that that is balanced by addressing the English question. Taken as a whole, the package will deliver a fair and sustainable settlement for the whole of the Union.
Dr Coffey
I shall address some points that have been raised in the debate. If I have time at the end, the hon. Gentleman may well be able to intervene then.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn said that we need a proper convention and that the proposals are a sticking plaster. Not only did the House not support that point of view last month in a vote, but I suggest to him that it would be a handbrake on making progress with a Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. We are making progress with the Silk commission and, as he knows, we intend to introduce a Wales Bill, and it is important that we do not add unnecessary delay to those things.
The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have suggested that they are being denied a voice on many issues, but there is nothing in the proposals published by the Conservative party to that effect. Although there will be many points of detail that we will discuss and debate in due course, I genuinely assure him that many of the points raised today will, I am sure, be addressed when we publish our detailed proposals, which will happen soon, and there will be time for scrutiny.
In the meantime, I will set out some points of principle that will underpin our approach, as set out in the Conservative party’s manifesto on which we won the election, including gaining a seat in North Wales—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (James Davies) in his place. I should point out that this idea is nothing new. It was also in our 2010 manifesto, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn contributed to a debate on the issue in 2009, so it is not novel.
In changing the way the House of Commons legislates, we have to balance the need for the Commons as a whole to express the voice of our entire United Kingdom with the need for English and Welsh MPs to express their voice on matters affecting England and Wales only. Our proposals will reflect that need and respect that balance by ensuring that all MPs continue to take part in the legislative process, but that relevant measures must also have the explicit support of a majority of MPs representing constituencies in England, for an England-only matter, or in England and Wales, as the case may be.
In that way, we will resolve the current position, which has become increasingly untenable, that English or English and Welsh laws can be made without the explicit consent of the MPs whose constituents are affected. It is particularly right to progress with these proposals so that we can rectify the situation whereby hon. Members from outwith England could have a decisive impact on legislation on English constituents, not only on subject areas for which they cannot vote for their own constituents, but contrary to the views of the majority of English MPs.
Dr Coffey
I will take interventions in a bit, including from the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn reflects objectively on the situation I have described. Our proposals will recognise that many laws apply to England and Wales and that the West Lothian question is as relevant in Cardiff as it is in Carlisle—I suppose it could become the Delyn or the Denbigh dilemma. That is why English and English and Welsh laws will require the explicit approval of the MPs whose constituents are affected by them.
As has been set out repeatedly by hon. Members today, and as I recognise, constituents often access services across the border, as well as councils and other trade bodies that, as we have heard, work very well together. The border is not a barrier, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) recognised, and I assure hon. Members that proposals that we will introduce soon will not stop access to services for constituents nor hinder the ability of any MP to hold the Government to account or stop them voting on legislation that affects those services. This is a popular policy, and not just in England. A study in January 2015 in Scotland found that over 50% of people supported the concept of English votes for English laws.
Let me turn to some other points made today. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that this is an important point of principle. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, close working across the border matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West alluded to a potential issue, but I honestly encourage the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to raise existing problems directly with the Welsh Assembly Government or with his Labour colleagues who are representatives in the Welsh Assembly.
As for the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and stretching somewhat into those made by the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I do not agree that what is proposed will create a second-class status for MPs. The hon. Lady referred to being barred from being able to help constituents, but she should recognise that she is barred now from voting to help her constituents on devolved matters. Indeed, in the last Parliament, I think the Education Bill was an England-only Bill, and I think I am also right in saying that SNP Members decided not to vote on the Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill. I would have thought that given the similar approach and the consistency that the SNP has shown, hon. Members should be genuinely assured that we are not seeking to do something different in that regard.
Ian C. Lucas
Does the Minister not find it extraordinary that she is calling in aid a nationalist approach to legislation within the United Kingdom to justify the approach that she is taking? Does that not mean that she is advancing a nationalist argument in favour of her case, because this is a nationalist proposal?
Dr Coffey
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not see this as a nationalist proposal. Devolution is now supported on both sides of the House, but this addresses the imbalance that English constituents feel about what has happened on the journey of devolution. I do not know why the Labour Government chose not to address this issue. Perhaps the reason was that when Tony Blair was leader of the Labour party, it won elections with a majority of MPs in England and so perhaps felt unable to do that.
Dr Coffey
Let me finish addressing the issues that have been raised. I should point out that the Speaker, who is of course elected by the whole House, is already required to certify Bills, such as money Bills—I am sure that some Scottish MPs may remember the Scottish Grand Committee being convened, but I do not think it has been in over a decade. However, the situation has not proved problematic so far. There have been no legal challenges, and during a Committee on the Floor of the House, the Speaker selects the amendments on which there will be votes, so in effect he already has the power to decide who can amend laws.
Mr David Jones
The Minister speaks of an imbalance, and I fully understand that procedural changes are necessary at this moment. In the long term, would that imbalance not be better addressed by reviewing the Welsh devolution settlement, and would a good opportunity for that not be the Wales Bill?
Dr Coffey
I am short of time—I have less than a minute—so I will not be able to.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said that he might lose his voice, but he clearly has not. When we were talking about devolved Administrations and devolved matters last month, he said:
“I understand the need to ensure that people in England cannot have a say on some of those issues”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 661.]
However, he seems to want it the other way around.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) asked about the definition of an English-only law, and I have referred to the Education Act 2011, which went through in the last Parliament. This is not about having a panic or break-up of the Union, but about settling that balance.
I wish I had time to cover all the other issues, but I just remind the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who suggested that these things have been drawn up in secret, that Labour was invited to participate in the Cabinet Committee but refused to last year. Labour had the chance but decided not to do so.
In conclusion, we will take action to answer the West Lothian question and ensure that our constitutional settlement is fair and sustainable in the light of further devolution, and I believe that that will strengthen the Union.
Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.
The motion stands in my name, along with those of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Scottish National party’s shadow Leader of the House.
The United Kingdom Youth Parliament has now met in this Chamber annually since 2009, giving younger people an opportunity to debate motions, which have recently been decided upon by a national poll under the name, Make Your Mark. The number of votes cast in the Make Your Mark ballot increased from 478,632 in 2013 to 876,488 in 2014. Last year, that led to debates on exam resits, the living wage, careers advice and the voting age, as well as a commemoration of world war one.
It is important that our young people learn a sense of respect and ownership of our democracy and its institutions, just as our democratic institutions need to respect them. Giving young people the chance to debate here in this Chamber is a great privilege, which I know they value. The motion would allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet annually for the length of this Parliament, and I commend it to the House.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
It is a pleasure to reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for their speeches. I also thank for their contributions the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the youngest person in the Chamber, although, as we know, not the youngest Member of Parliament elected in 2015.
All I can say to the Scottish National party Members is that, to some extent, they have been treated to a bit of a taster, if not a short masterclass, of Friday sittings. Five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke for 77 minutes, but today he spoke for only 24 minutes. In that regard, this has been a shorter debate. Nevertheless, he has shown consistency and, I would say, intellectual rigour. It pains me to think that I might be supporting a dig-Gordon-Brown-out-of-a-hole motion, but that is not the case today. Just as the House did five years ago, we are giving permission to another group of special young people to participate in a debate in the Chamber.
The point about other groups has been made. I am not aware of any other groups that have asked to use the Chamber. It would be for them to approach the House and for the House to decide, but I recognise that the House has, on the previous two occasions it has debated this matter, endorsed having the Youth Parliament sit in the Chamber.
I was intrigued by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He spoke passionately about the UK Youth Parliament and behaviour. I am sure Mr Speaker will be looking to him to be a role model to colleagues during Prime Minister’s questions for the next five years.
I want to say something that might jar. It is not strictly accurate to say that Members of the UK Youth Parliament could not be elected to the House, which addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) made. The UK Youth Parliament is open to anybody from age 11 to 18 and their term lasts for two years, so we could technically just about have a 20-year-old being a Member of the Youth Parliament, which, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Ms Black) proved, is young enough to be elected. Nevertheless, I recognise that the majority of Members of the Youth Parliament are under 18.
I was taken by the comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who is no longer in his place—he is probably off answering his trendy ringtone. He extended across the Chamber the branch of friendship to look at this particular situation, but I come back to the fact that it is a special occasion for the Members of the Youth Parliament. The hon. Member for Lewisham East was perhaps the first hon. Member in the debate to refer to a Member of the Youth Parliament. Five years ago, lots of Liberal Democrats did the sycophantic thing of naming every one they could. I had a Deputy Member of the Youth Parliament campaigning for me in the general election. It was good to see people getting involved in the campaign.
I hope that the House, having had a wide-ranging debate, endorses the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government currently have no plans to bring forward changes to the sitting hours of the House.
Mr Turner
A large majority of Members are simply unable to get home in the evenings, and we did not come to London to be given lots of free time. As we have so many new Members, may we ask again whether it is the will of the House that we sit later on Tuesdays and Wednesdays? I would certainly vote in favour of such a proposal, and I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members would agree with me.
Dr Coffey
Hon. Members had the opportunity to vote in the previous Parliament, and I suspect that my hon. Friend and I were in the same Lobby at the time. The Procedure Committee revisited the situation, and could do so again if Members made representations to it, but I repeat that the Government have no plans to change the sitting hours of the House.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post; I am sure she will perform extremely well, as she has in other posts. The Procedure Committee considered this matter in the previous Parliament, but does she agree that it would be opportune for the Committee to pick it up again when it is reconstituted, so that current Members can comment on the sitting hours of the House?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
There was an absence of consensus on this issue at the end of the previous Parliament, and there is still no consensus at the beginning of this Parliament. The Government therefore have no intention to bring forward proposals.
Mr Bone
I did not follow that, because there is now a Conservative majority in this House and it has always been Conservative policy to have a business of the House Committee. In welcoming the Deputy Leader of the House to her new position, I note that she is an ex-Whip, and she knows that such a committee would remove a lot of work from the Whips Office as well as being beneficial to the House. Will the Government reconsider their position?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend knows that the proposal was in the coalition agreement, and that after our great victory there is no longer a coalition. That said, there is still an absence of consensus on how a House business Committee would really work. I hope my hon. Friend welcomes the extra hour for Westminster Hall debates, so that there are plenty of opportunities for Members of all parties to continue to hold the Government to account.
Business of the House
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) says is said in strong terms.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Many parents will not have been able to get their children to school today. May we have a debate on whether to make it a statutory duty of governing bodies that schools stay open?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.