Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@Jonty
Created July 5, 2017 10:25
Show Gist options
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save Jonty/404faef9888fa8896476fd5388892e95 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save Jonty/404faef9888fa8896476fd5388892e95 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Everything Jacob Rees-Mogg has said in parliament. The shit.
We can't make this file beautiful and searchable because it's too large.
Will my right hon. Friend be asking businesses to list the most egregious and restrictive EU directives that may be removed once we leave in order to make British business more competitive and efficient? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-27a.441.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g442.3
Does the Prime Minister agree that no reasonable person could oppose what she has proposed? The only people who do never wanted us to leave in the first place. The idea that a foreign court should rule on the rights of people living here is akin to the outdated colonial approach taken towards China in the unequal treaties of the 19th century. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-26a.300.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g314.0
Thank you, Mr Speaker.At the end of her compassionate and comprehensive statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had to think about the people living very different lives from ourselves. As I am sure she knows, in opinion surveys going back over decades people never said they wanted to live in tower blocks. Can we change public policy so that tower blocks can become a thing of the past? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-22a.165.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g183.6
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). I was particularly delighted to hear that she had a birthday on election day, because so did my son, and cake was all over the Rees-Mogg household on that day, as I hope was the case in Newcastle upon Tyne North. I particularly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on her absolutely brilliant maiden speech, and on being the first new Member to make a maiden speech in this Parliament, which shows a wonderful courage.As it happens, the Chelmsford seat is the one I know from my earliest days politically, because my godfather, the late Norman St. John-Stevas, represented it—and got down to a majority of about 300 in his last election. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend has done a good deal better in her election. I listened to her speech, and her affection for her constituency, and her note at the end that it puts up statues to its most distinguished denizens, and I am sure that one in due course will appear to her. We are also very lucky to have somebody who so thoroughly understands European politicians joining our House at this time.I now want to move on to the tragedies that have affected this nation in recent months: the terrorist outrages. We must never assume them to be routine. They have happened with increasing frequency—four of them in such a short time—but we must not allow their repetition to lessen our horror or our determination to win through.Then there was Grenfell Tower, which I happen to think is an even greater tragedy as it seems to me that it was preventable. There is such deep sadness and horror at what happened there, and all of us in public life must ensure we work out how that can never happen again. Although it is often said that something should never happen again, it is not always within the power of man to ensure that that is the case, but with Grenfell Tower it ought to be possible to ensure that something of that kind never happens again.I am sorry for that long preamble, Mr Speaker, but I thought it was important in these circumstances, before I move on to the Queen’s Speech in the context of the general election.We basically fought the general election in the way Stanley Baldwin fought the 1929 general election. He ran on the slogan “Safety first”, and we ran on the slogan “Strong and stable”. I think the two are the same, and they are both deeply unappealing. He lost in 1929, and we underperformed in 2017—I use the word “underperformed” for the sake of accuracy rather than as an effort at spin.We have to ask ourselves why the safety first approach underperforms. I think the answer is that the voters do not feel that we are on their side; they feel instead that it is business as normal. Yet we know from the Brexit vote and the vote at the last election here—not to mention the United States and what has gone on on the continent—that voters are fed up with business as normal.We must look to the Queen’s Speech to decide how business is going to be changed: what are we going to do to make people’s lives better? One of the titles of the Pope is “servus servorum Dei”: the servant of the servants of God. That is how we should view our role —as the servants of the people of the United Kingdom, whom I happen to think are also the people of God. We must work to ensure that we can help them lead better, more prosperous lives.Brexit presents a great opportunity, and one that we are not talking about enough. The lessons of free trade are that we produce better standards of living for people because they can buy goods more cheaply. The biggest burdens that the EU imposes are on food, where the tariffs are so high that we cannot really import any, and the biggest generators of revenue in this country are clothing and footwear. Therefore, what is attacked by the protection in the single market and the customs union are the things that are the most important part of the basket of goods bought by the poorest in the land. We want to get rid of that, so that they can keep more income in their pockets to spend on the things that they want, or to save, with all the concomitant economic advantages that that leads to. People can then buy other goods or deposit money. Money can be invested and business can grow. If we move away from this protectionist European approach, people will have a higher standard of living. That is essential.This is not about having bad regulations and a free for all. Many countries in the world that we trade with have higher standards than we do. The United States has different standards but it does not poison its people, and the Australians do not poison their people, but the goods that we buy from them would be cheaper, and that will help the poorest in our country.We need to look specifically at some of the things in the Queen’s Speech, and to stand up for those who have big business weighing down on them. I am not anti-business. I have been in business all my life—I am pro-business—but I note the statement that Her Majesty graciously read to us about tackling“unfair practices in the energy market”.Even I had Scottish Power writing to me to say that it would send in the bailiffs when it had sent me a bill that was nearly 15 times what it was meant to be. Frankly, it is all right for me as I am quite capable of writing back to the company and making sure it does not send the bailiffs round, but when such companies do that to our constituents, those people do not necessarily have that easy ability to get in touch with the right person and stop that sort of nonsense happening. Some of these companies are aggressive and skew the contracts in their favour. That does not mean that I want to see a price cap, but I do want to see fairness and to see us being on the side of our voters.I want to finish on the subject of housing. Grenfell Tower has really brought this home to all of us. The problem with Grenfell Tower is a very deep-seated one. It goes back to the point at which it was popular to put up tower blocks as an exercise in social engineering. There are opinion surveys going back to the 1940s, and when people are asked what type of property they want to live in, 80% of them say houses; only 2% or 3% say tower blocks. But what did the politicians and the bureaucrats give to the people? We gave them tower blocks that they did not want, and there are now 4,000 of them blighting our landscape. We then decided that those tower blocks should be refurbished, and that refurbishment was very expensive. Hardly a penny seems to have been spared, except on safety. Those buildings might now be very environmentally friendly and they might look a little prettier than they did before, but although £8 million was spent on refurbishment, the £5,000 to make the panels fire-secure and the £200,000 for sprinklers was not spent.This is the worst type of bureaucratic imposition, and we should be saying to any family that goes to sleep in a tower block tonight frightened because the building has the same cladding and whose children are having nightmares that, whatever the difficulty, we will find somewhere else for them to live. The numbers may be great and the problem may be vast, but we must show that we are on people’s side. Then, we must recognise that people want houses, not tower blocks. We must build them houses and get rid of the tower blocks, and then we must allow them, as Margaret Thatcher did, to become homeowners. If we do that, we will be on people’s side. We will support our electors, and we will be, like the Holy Father, servus servorum Dei. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-21a.37.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g141.2
May congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming leader of the SNP group in Parliament? He is widely respected across the House and will, I think, be a brilliant leader for his troops. Does he not find that actually the SNP and the Tories are in the same position, because we both did less well than expectations but we both won more votes in our respective areas? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-21a.37.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g66.0
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, said about 10 minutes ago, “In conclusion.” I fear, as time has passed, that he may be in danger of inadvertently having misled the House, and I thought you might want to take the opportunity to set this right. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-06-21a.37.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g49.7
But does this not demonstrate why the Fixed-term Parliaments Act can never work? No Opposition can sensibly say that they would prefer a Government they oppose to continue in office, rather than having a chance to defeat them. The Act does not therefore fit within our constitution, and it ought to go. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-19a.680.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g697.5
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the difficulty with doing this through charges is that they come through in a statutory instrument, whereas new taxes go through a much fuller parliamentary procedure, and we should all be concerned about taxes that do not see the full rigour of parliamentary scrutiny? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g614.0
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and to join in this discussion on the great subject of sugar. While listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who told us the extraordinary fact that an average five-year-old eats his own body weight in sugar during the course of a year, I considered my own children. I do not have a five-year-old—I have a six-year-old, a four-year-old and lots of others—but the six-year-old weighs 3 stone, which seems to me to be similar to the weight likely to apply to five-year-olds. That is 42 lb, or 672 oz, so if a five-year-old is eating his own body weight in sugar in a year, he is eating 1.84 oz of sugar a day, which is equivalent to 11 teaspoons of sugar. One thinks of the lines of Mary Poppins:“Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”,and one wonders whether the medicine goes down even better after 11 spoonfuls of sugar.In spite of thinking that 11 teaspoons of sugar is quite a lot, I am not in favour of sugar taxes, because I do not think it is the job of the Government to tell me how much sugar to give to my children. I think that is a matter for parents to decide for themselves, and the tax system should be there to raise the revenue the country needs to pay its way. The tax system is not there to tell us how to live our lives. There may be an exception with tobacco, but that is not really the case with alcohol, which is a matter of raising revenue. Our rates on alcohol work very well in raising revenue, as, incidentally, do those on tobacco, which is a serious generator of funds for the Treasury to pay its way.I am sceptical about the proposed approach. I was struck by my hon. Friend’s comments that a lot of obesity is in fact genetic. If that is the case, we are penalising people who have a genetic propensity to obesity while it is fine for people like me. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.0
I give way to another hon. Gentleman for whom it is fine to eat lots of sugar. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.2
There is indeed an advertising industry, but we live in a free country and people ought to be able to advertise products. We have a lot of misinformation, have we not? We now learn that fat is not as bad for people as it was said to be, and that people have put sugar into products from which they have removed the fat in order to make them taste nicer because fat-free products without sugar taste disgusting. Advice that turned out to be wrong has led to manufacturers doing things that then turn out to be unhealthy. I am suspicious of the advice that comes from Government and their ability to get it right. If they end up getting it wrong, force us to change our behaviour and tax us, we get the worst of all possible worlds.A little bit of sugar does nobody any harm at all—only taking it to excess does so—and the only justification, which has indeed been made, is for children. However, I think that ignores the responsibility of parents, most of whom are responsible, and puts up the cost for responsible parents of giving their children what may, in many households, be an occasional treat rather than a regular habit. It is a tax that falls hardest on the poorest in society, who may occasionally be giving their children something that they like, because of the excesses of others. I do not really think that that is the job of the Government.That leads me to the issue of hypothecated taxation. Ministers should write out 100 times a day, “Hypothecation is a bad idea.” That has been the Treasury orthodoxy for as long as there has been a Treasury. Hypothecated tax does not work because it produces the wrong amount of money for what it is seeking. We see that with the prospect of putting money from the sugar tax into schools, in that we now discover that not enough money is likely to come from the sugar tax to meet the obligations given to schools, and that money will therefore have to come out of general taxation.If it were a good idea to put the money into schools in the first place, it ought to have come out of general taxation in the normal way. If it was not a good idea, but just a clever way of spending the money, taxpayers’ money should not have been used in that way. If we get into the position that something is now being done that did not need to be done because it was promised as money from a tax that has not come through, that is not a good way of carrying out Government policy. All hypothecation of taxation should be struck off: it simply leads to the wrong amounts.That leads me to the broader point I want to make about this Finance Bill and the Budget that preceded it. It is really very good news that an election has been called, because the Budget has become so hemmed in by the number of promises on taxation and revenue expenditure that have quite rightly been kept. Governments ought to keep their promises, and this Government have been absolutely rigorous in doing so, even ones that I do not like. For instance, I am not in favour of the 0.7% going on overseas aid, which I think has been a wasteful and extravagant promise when money is needed elsewhere. However, the justification was that it was in our manifesto, and in manifestos parties make a pact with the electorate that they ought to continue with except under the most extraordinary circumstances that have not arisen.Such an approach has led to very many areas of expenditure being fixed, while taxation has been limited at the same time. The deficit has been brought down to a third of what it was when this Government came in—that is a very substantial achievement, and one of which this Government and their predecessor ought to be proud—but it has become very hard to take that any further because of the encapsulating commitments that are limiting the Chancellor’s freedom of action. That is why the Finance Bill, for all that it has 700 pages, will not lead to a great deal of fundamental reform. It is tweaking things at the edges—looking at little bits of money here and little bits there—rather than taking a fundamental or basic approach to our tax system.Our tax system has become overly complex and, from the pressure of having to find little bits of money, it is becoming even more complex, which makes it difficult for taxpayers to pay the right amount of tax. We can see that more anti-avoidance legislation has come in to stop avoidance, because we have overcomplicated the tax system in the first place and a corrective measure has therefore had to be taken to try to prevent revenue from seeping away. A good example of that is the discussions we are having about perceived employment as opposed to self-employment. The Government were extremely proud of their achievement in making self-employment easier, but a constituent who came to see me explained that the £3,000 national insurance contributions exemption for small businesses had led to all the people working for him having to become individual companies. Doing so meant that it cost £3,000 a year less to pay them than if they were directly employed or were employed through one subsidiary company.Very good ideas come into individual Budgets—particular tax breaks to encourage particular forms of behaviour to lead to certain outcomes that the Government wish to see—but they then have to be corrected by anti-avoidance measures because they get taken and used in a way that was not intended under the initial legislation. That is why the election will be a great opportunity to stand on a platform of tax simplification, and I hope we will achieve the sort of majority that will help to push that through. To achieve tax simplification, it will be necessary to ensure that avoidance is removed at source, rather than by anti-avoidance measures. That means taking away some of the existing exemptions and incentives that encourage people to set up more complex systems than they need to minimise the amount of tax they pay.I am a defender of people taking such an approach. If Parliament legislates for tax to be collected in a certain way, with certain exemptions and thresholds, the individual taxpayer is completely and legitimately entitled to use them to their fullest extent. The approach is the fault not of the taxpayer, but of Parliament for putting exemptions into or leaving them in legislation. We should always be very careful when we talk about avoidance to distinguish it from evasion. Evasion is straightforwardly criminal—not paying the amount of tax that is, by law, due. Avoidance is looking at the tax system and saying, “I do not owe that tax, and I do not have to pay it because Parliament has not legislated for me to pay it.” As individual taxpayers, we are all entitled, as are all our constituents, to pay the tax Parliament requires, not a penny less or a penny more. If we had a system that was simpler overall, that would be hugely beneficial.There is a lot about anti-avoidance in the Finance Bill, including the new rules coming in for non-doms, about which I would be very careful. We live in a world where some very rich people want to come to the United Kingdom, and when they are here they employ people, spend money and pay taxes. We have a system that has barely changed since the days of Pitt the Younger—I cannot say I remember them, but I wish I did—and that broadly unchanged system was actually very beneficial for our economy because it brought into this country wealthy individuals who then provided economic activity. It is absolutely right to ensure that people who are obviously domiciled here in all normal senses of the word should be seen as being domiciled here, but we do not want such a difficult regime that people who might come here and contribute to our economy feel that they cannot do so. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g604.1
Absolutely. That is an important part of the reforms, but there has perhaps been a tone—more from the previous Chancellor than from the current Chancellor—that the non-doms were using the system. A lot of them could actually go anywhere in the world, but they come here because of the great virtues of investing in the UK: we have clear rights of property; we have an effective rule of law; and we have had simple regulations that have allowed them to be here. However, we have now increased the charges on them and increased their eligibility for certain taxes, and I think we should be very cautious about that because one never knows, with these sorts of things, where the tipping point will come. It may be that the annual charges applied to non-doms seem quite small compared with their wealth, but when we consider that they have families—the charges have to be multiplied for the wife, the number of children and grandparents, or whoever—we may find that the charges become quite high. The people bringing such wealth into the country have enormous mobility: they can go elsewhere. I know that standing up for non-doms six weeks before an election is not necessarily going to be a great rallying call for North East Somerset, but ultimately I think good economics leads to good politics rather than the other way around. A lot of what was done with regard to non-doms was much more about politics and perception than the contribution non-doms make to this country. In the context of Brexit, we want to show that we are genuinely open to the rest of the world. We want people to come here to invest and to spend their money, because that is so important to our long-term economic prosperity.There is a broad challenge with this Finance Bill, as there will be with its successor which will no doubt come. I have a feeling that this will be one of those happy years where we get more than one Finance Bill. Finance Bill debates are particularly enjoyable parliamentary occasions because they have no time limit. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that we might go right through the night and not be able to have our debate tomorrow. I look forward to that happening at some point in the future, but I have a feeling it is not going to happen today. Finance Bill debates are the best debates because of their fluidity and flexibility. When we get to the second Finance Bill, a fundamental choice will still have to be made. This relates to the answer we had from the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on the Opposition Front Bench. There is an absolutely key point at the heart of this Finance Bill, as there will be at the heart of any new Finance Bill. When I intervened on him and said that the tax rate as a percentage of GDP was at its highest since the days of Harold Wilson, his answer to me was that under Labour it would be even higher. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g606.1
I look forward to reading the characteristically accurate transcript Hansard will have for us tomorrow. The great thing about Hansard is that it allows us to correct our grammar—indeed, it often corrects it for us—but it does not allow us to correct the sense, so we will see what was said precisely.That is the choice. If the hon. Gentleman now wishes to move away from that choice I think that is telling: with an election approaching Labour Members are nervous about it, but the Labour party—the socialists—remains the party of high taxation. The Conservative Government have had to increase taxation because of the enormous deficit left by the spendthrifts of the last Labour Government who almost bankrupted the country. We would probably have gone to the International Monetary Fund at the time if it had had any money left, but it was bailing out Greece and everywhere else so it did not have much for us by the time the Conservatives came in. Through hard work, control of expenditure and, I am sorry to say, some tax rises, the deficit has been brought under control. That is the fundamental achievement of this Government.As we go into an election, it is the really big picture that matters. It will give such a clear and forthright choice to the British people. Do they want to continue to be governed by people who recognise that it is their money—the money of the individual taxpayer—of which the Government must take as little as possible to finance that which they are required to do? Or are we going to go back to the days of socialist tax and spend, with a huge increase in the deficit to finance spending programmes and tax increases that are even higher than those in the days of Harold Wilson? It was, of course, Denis Healey who said that he would squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked. That was his approach to taxation. Do we, by dutiful, sensible and prudent management of the economy, get things back under control where, with proper reforms, we can lower the tax burden? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g607.1
I would explain the national debt of approaching £2 trillion because of the place where we started. It is very interesting that when the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), started reducing the deficit he was told by Opposition Members, “Too far, too fast!” They chanted it like a mantra as he stood at the Dispatch Box nobly defending his policies. In fact, he went at the right pace to ensure that the Budget deficit came under control, while at the same time the economy was not unduly affected by the reductions in expenditure and increases in taxes that had to be made. It was a first-class balancing act by my right hon. Friend and that is why the deficit is at £2 trillion. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g608.0
It has succeeded. We have the fastest growing economy in the G7. For all the stuff we heard a year ago, the economy has carried on motoring ahead. The economy has done pretty well every year now since 2010. That is the success of the economic strategy that the Government followed. The deficit is about a third of what it was in nominal terms, but as a percentage of GDP it is now within the normal bounds of deficits. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g608.2
I do apologise for a lack of humility. I shall try to do better in that regard. I am, however, flattered that the hon. Gentleman remembers my speeches from years ago. I admire his attention to the debates in this House. The point I was making then was that a deficit of £150 billion a year, or 10% or 11% of GDP, was completely unsustainable. It is now down to about £50 billion and about 3.5% or 4% of GDP. It is at a manageable level. That is the achievement of the previous Chancellor and the current Chancellor. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g608.4
My hon. Friend comes from Somerset and her parents are constituents of mine. For both those reasons, she is invariably right and on this occasion particularly so. There is no money tree. It has to come from the success of businesses. It is a matter of balance. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) wishes to get away from that balance, but it had to be done at the right rate to ensure the least economic problems as taxes were raised and expenditure cut. That has been achieved. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g608.6
Targets are based on forecasts and forecasts have variables within them that even the wonderful, or not always wonderful, boffins cannot get absolutely right. What matters is not the precision of the forecast, but the broad trend of the economy. We have had consistent economic growth. We have the highest employment on record. This is an enormous achievement. As I said a moment ago, we have the fastest growing G7 economy. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g609.1
I do not agree with that analysis. My analysis is that the austerity allowed for a looser monetary policy which had beneficial consequences, that between 2010 and 2012 it was essential to operate a very tight fiscal policy to permit exactly the type of monetary policy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and that it would not have been possible to maintain the confidence of the markets if we had operated a loose fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy during those two years. The lack of economic growth during that period ties in with the considerable problems—the severe crisis—experienced by the eurozone and other economies.On this occasion, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of what went wrong, although I often do agree with him. I see a continuity in the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. However, although no time limit has been imposed this evening, I do not feel that I should go on forever. Many Members wish to speak, and others want to have their dinner. Let me end by reiterating that we face a great choice: the choice between the higher taxes proposed by the hon. Member for Bootle and the opportunity for lower taxes, sound economic growth and prosperity. I know you are independent, Madam Deputy Speaker, but vote Conservative. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g609.3
That is because Labour always inherits a wonderful financial situation from the Conservatives and we always inherit a mess from it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g601.1
The hon. Gentleman quotes the OBR, which was one of the few forecasters that was responsible enough a year ago not to make wild assumptions about what Brexit would mean. Most of the other forecasters thought they knew what would happen and got it comprehensively wrong. It shows prudence, caution and common sense not to try to forecast that which is essentially unknowable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g594.0
The point I was trying to make was that we have had incredibly wrong forecasts from all these illustrious bodies. The hon. Gentleman was only wrong on the OBR. I criticised lots and lots of bodies; the OBR was the one I singled out for not being so foolish as to make erroneous forecasts. The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all said that the day we left there would be Armageddon and we would have a punishment Budget. This turned out to be nonsense, and it is much wiser of the current Chancellor to avoid foolish speculation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g595.1
My hon. Friend is slightly glossing over the problems for businesses. Many of them will be paying accountants to make the filings that they are already making and this will be a further cost to them, which will bear down particularly heavily on smaller businesses. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g587.0
I would love this to be a low-tax economy, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that tax as a percentage of GDP is going to be at its highest level since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.569.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g579.1
Does the Lord President agree that this is actually one of the rare occasions when it is absolutely right that the statement was first made to the British people—not to this House—because it is they who are being asked to use their sovereign power to determine the composition of a new House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.542.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g544.4
Does my right hon. Friend look forward to getting net £10 billion a year into the Exchequer, and does he note that the claims for tens of billions of euros from our friends in Brussels merely illustrate the financial incontinence on the continent? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-04-18b.528.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g529.1
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will place in the Library a full list of tariffed commodities with their identifying codes and their annual revenues for 2015. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-03-28.69548.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g69548.q0
Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Francis Drake:“There must be a begynnyng of any great matter, but the contenewing unto the end untyll it be thoroughly ffynyshed yeldes the trew glory”?I wish my right hon. Friend good luck and good fortune in her negotiations until she comes to true glory and is welcomed back to this House as a 21st century Gloriana. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-29c.250.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g272.3
These codes of practice are marvellous, but the problem that has been established in this debate is that they are not followed, and the DVLA is complicit in that. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-03-21b.253.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g274.0
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Ms Dorries? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing it forward, because many of our constituents have complained about what is going on in the parking field. I also thank the Minister and his predecessor for their many courteous replies to the letters that I have written.The DVLA is at the heart of this issue, not the Department for Communities and Local Government or other bodies. It is the DVLA giving out information that begins this whole unfair process, so the buck stops with the DVLA and the Minister, not with other people or regulations. It is the DVLA that has decided that it will accept accredited trade associations and give out information to them, subject, apparently, to audits that it carries out. It would be useful to hear about what audits have been done.My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned Premier Park. I have no qualms about mentioning businesses without telling them in advance. There is no convention that we should be expected to do that, and we should be wary about limiting our right of free speech in this House. Premier Park behaved quite disgracefully to a constituent of mine and has a reputation for doing so at a place called Popham Diner, which local newspapers have written about. Has the DVLA audited that company? Has it looked into it? Has it, in response to complaints from Members of Parliament, gone beyond the accredited trade association to see what is going on?The Government are at the heart of this matter, because it is about the principles on which our society is founded and what the Government are there to do. One of the great roles of the Government is to ensure justice and make it impossible for the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless, but the DVLA is party to helping the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless. It just says that these accredited trade organisations are, broadly, enough, but those organisations have a vested interest in approving the bodies that sign up to them, because that is where their revenue comes from. The last thing that one of those bodies wants to do is to penalise a parking company that is signed up to it, because if it does, other companies will not sign up and its revenue stream will be threatened. There is a clear conflict of interest.To my mind, that is where the DVLA is not doing its job, because it is not protecting individuals against those who are more powerful. That is where it should change, and that is where the answer to the problem is. The DVLA should do its own approval of organisations and have its own code of conduct. The fee it charges may cover all of that—it is not unreasonable to charge a fee if you are doing the job properly and there is no vested interest. That work should be done properly by a Government body.The law is there to protect us. This is essentially a system that is outside the law but to which the Government are party. It is not a legal process, but, as other Members have said, it appears as if it is. It appears to be the same as a fine from a local authority, but it is not. In my experience, the local authorities behave much more reasonably than the private companies. Yesterday, I had a letter from Bristol City Council, which is behaving extremely well to a constituent of mine, erring on the side of leniency to someone who made an honest mistake. The private companies do not seem to do that because their business model is otherwise, and the DVLA is party to that. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-03-21b.253.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g264.4
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We want fairness in the process. We must understand that the DVLA has the information in the first place as a legal requirement so that the police may know to whom cars belong. That is why, by law, we are obliged to register our cars. We are not obliged to register them for the benefit of a subsequent private contract, which is a subsequent activity beyond the initial purpose of the DVLA. It was to be there for public interest, not for private contracts. Because of the way in which parking has developed, the DVLA has got involved in this private parking aspect. It earns fees from that, although apparently it is loss-making, which if true seems extraordinarily silly. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-03-21b.253.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g265.1
If it is not true, that is very reassuring; I am glad. However, the fact that that is not true is worrying in another direction, because the DVLA ought not to be affected in its judgment by its revenue streams. If we have an accredited parking authority that gets revenue from the car park, and the car park pays money to the DVLA to get information, there is a chain of money going through, which seems to be overriding the chain of justice and the right of the state, the duty of the state and the obligation of the state to protect the individual.The DVLA has the solution in its hands, as do the Government. The situation requires not changes of legislation but changes by the DVLA in how it gives out information. I will carry on banging on about this until we know that companies have been suspended, that companies have been audited, that companies are not getting the information any longer and that the DVLA is taking proper charge to protect our constituents. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-03-21b.253.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g266.1
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that had the car parking operation been a public one, an honest mistake would have been a complete defence? That has been established at the High Court in relation to the congestion charge. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-03-21b.253.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g262.0
May I thank my right hon. Friend for his wisdom in being open to changing his mind, which shows the serious-mindedness of Her Majesty’s Government; and for his propriety in telling this House first and doing it himself, not sending someone else on his behalf? May I also commend him for his singular achievement of converting a number of desiccated socialists to support for lower taxation? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-15c.420.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g428.2
As my right hon. Friend launches into the negotiations, I wonder if she has had time to consider the excellent House of Lords report that says we have no legal obligation to pay any money whatsoever to the European Union. Does she share my view that that is an excellent basis for beginning the negotiations? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-14b.178.13&s=speaker%3A24926#g186.2
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he has taken as a result of the Speaker's statement of 6 March 2017, Official Report, column 622, on his Department's new policy on accessing information about constituents' universal credit claims; and if he will make a statement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-03-09.67354.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g67354.q0
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) lays down the challenge that not enough was said on Brexit, so let me try to put that right; it is a challenge I am happy to rise to. If one thinks back to just a few months ago, we were expecting this to be the “punishment Budget,” and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) was going to be telling us that it was all doom and gloom. I have looked up a quotation from one Mr Angel Gurría, the secretary-general of the OECD, which yesterday gave us a little good news. He said there would be a Brexit tax of £2,200 per person and went on to tell us:“The costs are piling up, and we are still two months away from the referendum.”He said it was getting worse and worse.I rather feel as the diners must have felt at the Belshazzar’s feast, when the words appeared written on the wall, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” and Daniel came and translated them and said, “You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.” After the feast they all went to bed and woke up the next morning, and instead of Darius the Mede having taken over, Belshazzar carried on as normal. It was business as normal, and that is what is so impressive about this Budget.We are, indeed, in a period of transition with Brexit; we are heading out of the door, I am glad to say, in spite of their lordships’ obstructionism, but we are doing so from a position of extraordinary strength and remarkable stability. And that stability is deliberate and is part of Government policy.It is worth looking at page 57 of the Red Book, because we see there the percentage of GDP that is anticipated to come in as public sector receipts. It will be consistently between 36% and 37.5% over the period we are looking at. If we look back over a much longer time period, all the way to Harold Wilson’s prime ministership, we see that public sector receipts remain in the region of 34.5% to 38.5%.However detailed, pernickety and fiddly the changes in taxation, it is remarkably difficult to raise that taxation much above current levels, and therefore what we are talking about in this Budget is more a question of how the cloth is cut than whether there should be more taxation or not. Expenditure must then fit in with that, and to ensure that expenditure remains under control remains the business of government whether they are this Conservative Government, they were the last coalition Government, or, heaven forfend, they are a socialist Government, should Labour ever manage to return from its current sorry state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g859.0
That really depends on how we measure our cloth. I am in favour of measuring my cloth in imperial measures—that is to say, pounds and ounces, inches and feet and so on, and therefore of using sterling as my base for measuring things. If we do that, our international assets have gone up enormously, because any dollar assets we hold are worth 15% more in pounds. That is more income coming in, and that helps reduce the current account deficit; it is good news for the British economy. Our exporters are 15% more competitive. That deals with any tariffs that may be imposed—if any are imposed. What is more, we are at the front of the queue for a trade deal with the strongest and biggest economy in the world, so actually, post-Brexit we are fighting fit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would ensure that we were fighting fit, and we are. We are open for business with the world. With the continuing cuts in corporation tax, we are showing that we are absolutely willing to compete with anybody in attracting capital investment and that we are ready to do business in a way that investors will like. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g860.1
The forecasts are taken from the OBR and if the hon. Gentleman looks at its rather thicker report, he will see its comments in relation to Brexit and trade deals. The OBR is still rather negative on trade deals and I think that it is wrong. I have the greatest respect for the OBR, because it is the one body that during the Brexit campaign behaved properly and within its remit and did not dabble its fingers into the politics of the Brexit debate. Its view is cautious on trade. It thinks that over the next 10 years, post-Brexit, our trade position will be less good. I happen to think that that is wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g860.3
Of course I give way to the hon. Lady. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g861.1
That was broadly the point I was making—the OBR is quite cautious. I was not disputing that it is cautious, but I am not cautious. I am sorry to say that, much though I respect the OBR and much though I think it does its work diligently, it got it hopelessly wrong a year ago and had to raise its forecasts for GDP growth consistently, because it did not manage to get them right. It revised down the November autumn statement and has had to revise back up again now. I think it is a terrible mistake, though earlier I quoted holy scripture, to take forecasts from these people as holy writ. They are not.This comes down to a question of judgment, both political and economic. The political judgment is on whether this Government are going to be competent to negotiate well and effectively. I have complete confidence that they will do that—that they will be able to negotiate in the councils of Europe more effectively than anybody else could on our behalf. The economic judgment is on the balance between what we get from the European Union and what we can do with the rest of the world. I expect that, if we trade more freely with the rest of the world, that will more than compensate for the risks that we may take in having harder terms of trade with the European Union.Having taken up the challenge from the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who both wanted a Government view on Brexit—I cannot claim to speak for the Government, but I can at least say something about Brexit—I want to go through some of the details. This Budget has some very good news about the deficit. Although £51.8 billion, the deficit for this year, is still a very large amount of money, as a percentage of GDP we are now back within the norms of the types of deficits that Governments can run with. That is not to say that I think having a deficit is a good thing in principle, but GDP growth is near 2.6% and this is about remaining steady with total debt and GDP. If we go no further than that, it is an amount that can be lived with. That is important, because although there is more to be done, the vast bulk of what was necessary to live within our means has now been done.I want to make some little points about certain areas of concern. I would encourage the Government not to proceed with the personal injury discount rate reduction to minus 0.75%. The idea that awards against the Government should be calculated with a negative time cost of money is wrong. It would be better and cheaper for the Government to underwrite annual payments, rather than making lump-sum payments with a discount rate of a negative kind—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) mutters that I do not understand this. I do understand it, and I know that the Government are obliged by law to do this, but they have the ability to introduce new laws in this House and can often do that as part of the Finance Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g861.3
We can set rates in a different way. We can set them, then adjust them for inflation at a lower initial rate, rather than having a payment based on a capital sum. Reducing the rate from 2.5% to minus 0.75% is a mistake and will result in an undue cost to the Exchequer.I also have concerns about the probate tax. I see that it is likely to be judged by the national statistics people as a tax rather than as a charge, and I do not think it right that the Government should introduce stealth taxes. Probate charges should relate to the cost of the probate work, which is broadly irrelevant to the size of the estate. There might be some more work for bigger estates, but the difference will not necessarily be as large as has been proposed.The biggest issue is national insurance contributions. I see the logic in what the Government want to do, because there is an unfairness between self-employment and employment, but the question is not so much one of revenue as of whether having a structure in the economy that encourages self-employment is beneficial overall, and whether that is a price worth paying. If we look at what has happened since 2008, we can see that unemployment in this country remained so low as we went through a deep and challenging session partly because of the great flexibility within our labour market. Part of that flexibility comes from self-employment, because employers do not have to take on all the risks of full employment, with all the benefits such as holiday and sickness pay that that entails. That means that the self-employed are a major contributor to the flexibility of the economy.I very much doubt that increasing the national insurance contributions for the self-employed by 1% and subsequently 2% will fundamentally change the balance, but in economics, things often happen at the margins rather than being an easily identifiable inflection point when we are starting out. I would therefore be cautious about this change, and I urge the Government to look at the whole question of the relationship between national insurance and income tax in the round. National insurance represents about £130 billion of revenue. It is an enormously important source of funding for what the Government wish to do, but its relationship to income tax creates confusion and distortion within the system. This is just one of those distortions, and I am not sure that making a minor change at the edges is the right way to go about changing the relationship in taxation between the self-employed and the ordinarily employed. Those are the three minor cautions that I would offer on the Budget, but I remember a Conservative party slogan, “Britain’s on the right track, don’t turn back”, and that seems to me to be where we are. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-08c.823.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g862.1
May I begin by declaring my inherited interest in this subject, but perhaps also jog the mind of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on the half a million pounds he received from Mr Mosley, which may have some bearing on these matters? What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether she will be certain not to involve herself in this socialist witch hunt against Mr Murdoch and News Corporation/Fox News, which has done so much, both through newspaper publishing efficiency after Wapping and through the launch of Sky News, to increase plurality in the media in this country. This wonderfully successful company should not be persecuted because the left does not like it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-06a.581.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g585.1
Most certainly not. I was merely declaring my own interest and it occurred to me that it was only fair to remind the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that he had not referred to his interest in the half a million pounds he received—I am absolutely certainly it was an inadvertent oversight. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-06a.581.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g586.0
I am now better informed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-03-06a.581.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g586.2
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way with regard to his new clause 10, but I wonder whether he has thought through the constitutional implications of allowing a vote in this House to have any formal standing when it is neither a statutory instrument nor primary legislation. Would that not risk bringing the courts into the proceedings in Parliament? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-24a.1289.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1297.3
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. How would that be tested? If the Government decided not to have a debate in Parliament, it could not be taken to a judicial review, because the courts could not consider a proceeding in Parliament. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-24a.1289.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1297.5
I wonder whether there might be other factors involved. My hon. Friend will no doubt have heard the President of the United States expressing considerable concern about the dangers now arising in Sweden. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-24a.1289.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1299.0
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response to Mr Trump’s perhaps ill considered phraseology, but what complaint did he make when Emperor Hirohito, who was responsible for the rape of Nanking, came here? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-02-20a.247.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g249.0
On a point of order, Mr Walker. I do not think it is in order to refer to pimping out our sovereign, even if someone is quoting a journalist, however distinguished. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2017-02-20a.247.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g251.0
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This House has nobly represented the will of the British people in a referendum, and that is why the Bill has passed as it has. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-08b.560.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g565.2
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.337.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g385.2
I hope that UKRep will be very slim. The hon. Gentleman is surely now suggesting the most pointless of all his impact assessments, because the Department for Exiting the European Union will cease to exist at the end of the process, and therefore having an impact assessment on what it might do before the process has ended is otiose beyond measure. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.337.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g385.4
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.337.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g387.2
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is completely right to use the procedures of the House as they allow, and, if he carries on like this, he will reach the heights attained by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). [Interruption.] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.337.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g387.4
The hon. Gentleman is complaining about a slogan on the side of a bus about giving extra money to the NHS and implying that his amendment gives money to the NHS, but it does not—it merely suggests that there should be a report on the effect of the withdrawal from the EU on national finances, including health service expenditure. He therefore seems to be falling into exactly the same trap as he is accusing others of. Motes and beams come to mind. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.337.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g356.4
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on this supreme red herring. It does not matter whether the ECJ thinks article 50 is irrevocable; the British people have determined that it is an irrevocable decision. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.260.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g281.6
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.260.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g278.0
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-07b.260.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g269.2
Could the hon. Lady clarify whether new clause 26 would effectively give the First Minister of Scotland, if she refused to agree, a veto over the exercise of article 50? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-06b.129.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g149.2
Is not the issue solved by the Government’s current proposals? When everything is brought into UK law by the great repeal Bill, all EU nationals here will continue to have the right to reside unless Parliament legislates to take it away, which seems to me to be inconceivable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-02-06b.48.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g98.1
What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has reassured us once again that the Liberal Democrats do not believe in democracy. It is slightly incongruous that they should be in that position.Today, in fact, we celebrate one of the days that will go down in the annals of British history. There are many years in British history that we can call to mind, such as 1066 or 1215—[Interruption.] How many do you want? Great and famous years include 1346, 1485, 1509, 1588 and 1649, but it is very rare that specific days are commemorated as I think 23 June 2016 will be. It is on a par with St Crispin’s day 1415 and with 18 June 1815, which were great days in our nation’s history. We are here debating the matter because our constitution has been put back on a proper footing by the wisdom of the British people, and also, as it happens, by the Supreme Court. I am particularly pleased by page 29 of the judgment, which says:“For these reasons, we disagree with Lloyd LJ’s conclusion in Rees-Mogg in so far as he held that ministers could exercise prerogative powers to withdraw from the EU Treaties.”The judges, though it has taken a year or two, finally agreed that in 1993 my father was right. So there is a virtue in this judicial process, slow and long-winded though it may be.This is important constitutionally because Dicey’s constitution has been restored. The Queen in Parliament is the sovereign body of our nation. That is so important because, as Dicey argued, it is Parliament that is the defender of the liberties of the people, of our ancient constitution, and of our freedoms. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g906.0
The hon. Gentleman will know that following the Act of Union the Westminster Parliament was the inheritor Parliament of both Parliaments, and therefore the two traditions, to some extent, merged in 1707. He is very well aware of that point. The sovereignty of Parliament now applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g907.1
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The judgment is completely clear that the Sewel convention is a political convention that it is not within the field of the judiciary to rule on. The judges say that they“are neither the parents nor the guardians of”the Sewel convention, but they also make it clear that by legislation this Parliament can do anything within the United Kingdom on behalf of the British people.We need to go back to the beginning. Where does this parliamentary sovereignty come from? We are back to the debates of the 17th century. Parliamentary sovereignty in this country was thought to come either via the King from God or to Parliament via the people. That is where referendums so rightly come in, because the sovereignty we exercise is not sovereignty in a vacuum. It is not sovereignty that has descended on us from on high; it builds up from underneath. The people of the United Kingdom have an absolute right to determine how they are governed, and on 23 June— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g907.3
I cannot give way again because I do not get any more bonus points.On 23 June, the people voted that parliamentary sovereignty would be restored to this House. The judges in the Supreme Court decision reinforced that, because they reversed the clawing of power from this House that has gone to the Executive since the European Communities Act 1972. This is where the shocking, outrageous and monstrous hypocrisy of the pro-Europeans clicks into place—none of them are Members of this place, of course, for no Members of this place are ever in any sense hypocritical, as we all know. The pro-Europeans cried parliamentary sovereignty to obstruct the will of the British people, as law after law cascaded down from the European Union to a Chamber that was empty and to Committee rooms where debates were over in 30 minutes. There was no interest in parliamentary sovereignty when the ratchet was clawing it away from the United Kingdom, but a great cry when the British people asked to have it back for themselves.The Supreme Court has recognised that this House is where power must lie in the creating and repealing of laws. This will restore our proper constitutional balance, so that no more will we have talk of superior legislation. The courts had developed a theory from the 1972 Act that it was superior law, and that laws passed after it were bound by it. That is alien to the British constitution. This House has no ability to bind its successors, and that principle is being restored by leaving the European Union and repealing, ultimately, the 1972 Act. Once that is done, the thread on which the idea of superior law has been hung will be cut, and we will be back to a situation in which a Parliament of five years can pass any laws for this country but cannot bind its successors, and its laws can in no way be overruled by anybody outside the Queen in Parliament.The great virtue of the constitution—this is where I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—is that it has provided prosperity, peace and security for our nation. The economy is not created out of nowhere; it depends on the existing constitutional structures that protect the rule of law, allow corruption to be exposed by freedom of speech, enable the democratic will to act as the protector of what is decided and ensure that property rights are respected.We are returning to the happy constitutional system that was known in this country until 1972. In the glories of our constitution, and with the great wisdom of our parliamentary draftsmen, we are doing it in one of the shortest Bills ever to pass through this House. All that this Bill does—and this is why the amendments are all such flotsam and jetsam designed to obstruct the will of the British people—is to implement the noble, brave and glorious decision that the people made on that day of legend and song, the twenty-third of June in the year of our Lord 2016. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g908.2
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g868.0
I wish to say that Eurosceptics in this House owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has been our leader on this issue for many decades. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g838.0
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g833.5
I seem to remember that the Scottish people blew a large raspberry at that White Paper. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g833.7
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-31c.817.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g825.2
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making those words in our passports that refer to allowing Her Majesty’s subjects to travel “without let or hindrance” a reality, and on being the first Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to defend domestic policy in the United States since Lord North. May I encourage him to defend our interest, as he is doing, and not seek to tell America how to run itself? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-30b.674.10&s=speaker%3A24926#g682.0
Does my hon. Friend agree that selling into the single market is far preferable to being a member of it, because it is a highly regulatory, bureaucratic mechanism on which 87% of British businesses—the British economy—are not reliant? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-26a.428.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g428.9
Has my right hon. Friend noticed that those who now wail parliamentary sovereignty mean the yoke of Brussels; when they say scrutiny, they mean delay; and when they say respect, they mean condescension? Does he agree with me that the British people have voted and we must legislate? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-24b.161.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g176.0
Mr Speaker, as the matters we are about to discuss are of the utmost confidentiality and may give succour to Her Majesty’s enemies, I beg to move, That the House sit in private.Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-23d.17.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g22.8
Is it not further sensible to bring forward this Bill because the courts have watered down the understanding of implied repeal and built up a hierarchy of legislation? Therefore, as the principle of implied repeal has been weakened, it is more important that the legislation that we pass is clear. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-20a.1180.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1204.0
The historical understanding was quite clear: any subsequent Act implicitly repealed a previous one. In recent years, however, the courts have developed, particularly in relation to the European Union, an understanding of a hierarchy of legislation. They have decided what are and what are not constitutional Acts. We do not list Acts as constitutional and non-constitutional—all Acts that we pass are of the same level—so this is just about creating certainty. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-20a.1180.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1204.2
My petition comes from dozens of residents of Saltford in Somerset.The petition states:The Humble Petition of residents of Saltford,Sheweth,That the petitioners would prefer the inhabitants of some boats moored on the River Avon in Mead Lane to refrain from staying for long periods of time.Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House ask Her Majesty’s Government to consider the opinions of local residents and other boat owners in this regard.And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.[P002002] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-11c.428.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g428.2
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-10c.246.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g267.0
I am so sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Press Recognition Panel is not independent; it is the creation, under a royal charter, ultimately of the Crown and therefore of the state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-10c.246.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g267.2
Is not the Government’s position extremely sensible? A succession of criminal trials have looked into this matter. They have proceeded in a proper judicial way, and most of the information that we need is already available. To go on inquiring, inquiring and inquiring is merely adding to the already £50 million cost that there has been to the taxpayer. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-10c.246.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g252.0
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-10c.246.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g252.2
The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-10c.246.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g252.5
May I note a hereditary interest in relation to the forces of the great Rupert Murdoch and commend my right hon. Friend for her proper even-handedness in dealing with this matter and her correct responses. May I also note that we have seen the true voice of socialist envy that, thanks to Rupert Murdoch, who risked his whole business on it in about 1990, Sky has provided incredible choice to millions of people. It is amazingly popular. Instead of decrying this wonderful achievement, we should be proud that it happened in Britain and that this huge investment is potentially coming into our nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind and will not fall tempted by the siren voices of socialist ingrates. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-20b.1314.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1318.4
Does not that fundamentally undermine the bedrock of our justice system—that somebody is innocent until proved guilty? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-12-13a.268.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g271.0
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is a near constituency neighbour of mine, although I cannot say I am in agreement either with her or with most of her constituents.This is a very interesting debate. As one listened to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), one discovered that Labour Members really had nothing to debate at all. They have accepted the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he would keep the House up to date. They have accepted that there would be no disclosure of material that was in any way damaging to the negotiations. Just to add a cherry to the top of the cake that we are all looking forward to eating in due course, they have accepted a date for the implementation of article 50. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have reached the point of such loyalty that they are having an Opposition day debate to back the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.I think this is a very interesting way of spending our time, and perhaps having the Opposition supporting Government policy will be a new means of forming consensus across Parliament, but one does wonder why they decided to have a day’s debate on this—purely to support the Government—rather than on the other things they could have debated. The answer one comes to is that, when the Government tabled their amendment last night, they cooked the Opposition’s goose. This debate is not really about the form of words used—or even the split infinitive—in Her Majesty’s Opposition’s motion, but about seeking to reject the decision that was made by the British people on 23 June.That is what underlies every bit of this process. One minute, it is about delay, with hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches—some even on the Government side—saying, “We are doing it too fast. We should slow down and be a bit more cautious, because it would be so dangerous to do what the British people asked us to do at the pace at which they expected us to do it. Surely that is not wise.” Such people have delayed Brexit through applications to the Court.Labour Members have also come to Parliament. Oh, how wonderful—what joy that, suddenly, so many of them are in favour of parliamentary scrutiny. When I sat in the Chamber discussing issues sent for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee, were the Benches heaving? Time after time, Labour Members were represented only by their Front-Bench spokesman. In debates in Committee put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee, in which every Member has an entitlement to turn up and be heard, do debates run for the full two and a half hours that they are allotted, or do people try to get through them in about 10 minutes and then go back to signing their Christmas cards? Parliamentary scrutiny has become the watchword of people who held Parliament in contempt. Why do they bring it up? Because they are condescending to the British people: they think the British people got it wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g299.2
I am honoured to give way to the hon. Lady. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g300.1
Parliament is indeed sovereign, and Parliament, in its wisdom, passed a referendum Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that it was advisory. Just think about that. Who was it supposed to advise? Did Parliament pass a Bill to advise itself? Surely not. If it had been to advise Parliament, Parliament would have made the Bill automatically effective, because we do not need to advise ourselves on the Bills that we should pass. It was clearly an exercise of parliamentary sovereignty to advise the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative. Parliamentary sovereignty has already been expressed and ought to be fulfilled.Those who are appealing now to parliamentary scrutiny are in fact rejecting an Act passed through this House, and worse, they are rejecting our employers—our bosses, our liege lords—the British people, who decided this matter for us. They use a glorious language, of which Lewis Carroll would have been proud—a Humpty-Dumpty-esque approach to saying what they really mean. Even in this motion—when it was first brought forward, before the Government had managed to corral it into, in effect, a Government motion—they say how much they respect the decision. Respect! The word has been changed by the lexicographers. It used to mean that one held something in high esteem and high regard and believed it should be implemented; now it means “condescend to, think ridiculous, think unwise”. The word “respect” has been utterly devalued by those on the Opposition Benches, as they feel the British people got it wrong. Let us not use the word “respect” of the electorate any more; let us say, “Obey,” for we will obey the British electorate.And yes indeed, we have a plan. There is a plan set out clearly, and that is that we will leave. Everything else flows from that—everything else is leather or prunella. Leaving means, as the Prime Minister said, that there is no more superiority of EU law; the European Court of Justice may advise and witter on but no more will it outrank this House, and any contribution we make to the European Union will be from our overseas aid budget, because it will be supporting poor countries. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g301.0
Of course I will give way. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g301.2
I am extremely grateful for the extra minute.Leaving is everything. That is the point. The rest of it is subsidiary. It is the ordinary activity of government, which the Government do as long as they command a majority in this House. The ultimate parliamentary scrutiny, which all Governments have suffered from going back at least to the 19th century and probably before, is the ability to command a majority in this House. If a Government can do that, it is then quite right that they are able to exercise the royal prerogative in the details of negotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) so rightly put it, if we were to tie down every jot and tittle of what the Government were negotiating, we would spend our whole time in the law courts. That makes government impossible.It is not a man, a plan, a canal: Panama—a wonderful palindrome. It is a lady, a plan, freedom: Brexit. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g301.4
My right hon. and learned Friend’s last point is exactly the point: if we have left the EU, judgments of the ECJ will have the same effect as judgments of the WTO arbitration court. They will not be automatically law of this land and will be subject to Parliament, which is a fundamental change. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g285.0
Will my right hon. Friend clarify the point that any vote in this House at the end of the process would merely be on the deal and could not reverse the fact that we had left the European Union. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-07b.220.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g235.1
Does my hon. Friend agree that Brexit is essentially a red herring for SMEs in this context, and that what matters is that the Government create the right conditions for businesses to do business and that the banks are in a sufficiently capitalised position to lend money? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-29b.1387.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g1388.2
May I congratulate the Chancellor on his excellent statement? I draw his attention to page 96 of the OBR report, which sets out the assumptions in relation to Brexit. It seems to me that there are two problems with those assumptions. First, they assume that we will apply tariffs on the same basis as we do inside the European Union, which the Chancellor will know he will be able to remove. Secondly, they are particularly gloomy on the prospects for financial services. Might we be able to take a slightly more optimistic tone and, with the freedoms that we have outside the customs union and the single market, be able to solve the productivity problem? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-23c.899.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g932.1
This is an absolutely dreadful amendment and it should be thrown out, rejected and sent back to the House of Lords. It is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to punish those who might be innocent and to fine them for telling the truth and for saying things that people in power do not like. This amendment goes to the heart of our free press, and it should be thrown in the bin. IMPRESS is already an organisation of ill repute, founded, funded and paid for by somebody who is known to us only because of his misdeeds. A degenerate libertine has provided all the money for IMPRESS, which only the most junior newspapers will sign up to. It is a dreadful body.We should maintain the freedom of our press to help us with our liberties. We have only to look at the policeman who went to prison a few weeks ago. He successfully sued the press in the 1990s, but it turned out that he was in fact a child molester. Whenever we put constraints on the press, we help the powerful to get away with misdeeds. This House should stand up for freedom. It should stand up for liberty and it should reject the unelected House of Lords trying to prevent scandal from being reported freely. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-15b.153.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g167.0
Would my hon. and learned Friend not go further and say that a Bill on national security is precisely the wrong place for restrictions on the press, as it would make it look as if we were really trying to hit them hard? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-15b.153.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g156.2
Will the hon. Lady explain one point about the amendment? Why should the press be punished if it is not in fact guilty of phone hacking? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-15b.153.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g158.1
While it would be improper for Ministers to criticise judges, though not judgments, and disorderly for this House to criticise judges, except under a specific motion, is it not absolutely right that our press are free, fearless and outspoken, because there may be less happy times when judges need to be held more firmly to account? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-07a.1254.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g1267.4
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the implications of bringing into effect section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 for the protections and privileges granted under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840; and if she will make a statement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-10-26.50501.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g50501.q0
I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend’s speech at such an early stage, but last year we established a tradition of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carried out the lottery to ensure that our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) came third in the ballot and had this Bill to introduce. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to say a few words on that subject. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1193.1
Do we not also have to have confidence in people and in the fact that they can make decisions for themselves? If they decide that they loathe the internship after a week, they are not paid and they are not contractually obligated, so they can leave and take on another internship or paid employment. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1195.0
Will my hon. Friend examine the figures just given by our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)? He said that 40% of people do not take up internships because they cannot afford to, but 66% of internships are paid. That does not seem quite to work. It must mean that people are refusing to take up paid internships as well as unpaid internships, in which case simply paying people will not solve the problem. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1197.4
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1204.0
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I, too, am not a lawyer, but according to implied repeal, a later Act trumps a former Act—except, I am sorry to say, with the European Communities Act 1972, which has been deemed constitutional statute. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1204.2
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. Will he talk a bit about the status of voluntary work? Some people want to volunteer, and lots of charities have business arms; there are charity shops and so on, which have a mix of employee and volunteer help. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1183.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1192.0
May I commend my hon. Friend for his balanced and reasoned responses today? The Opposition seem to think that everything done by the state works perfectly and that whenever it is outsourced it may go wrong. I think they forget that, over the years, HMRC has had quite a few internal problems of its own—failing to answer the telephone and the chaotic initial introduction of tax credits, for example. It is absolutely right to look to securing savings through outsourcing to the private sector throughout Government Departments where it is the right thing to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1176.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1179.1
May I tell my hon. Friend that Scottish National party Members are very willing to give advice on how their constituencies are pronounced and that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spent some time helping me to get it right? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1172.3
Is this not a very important point? What about those people who work for charities on a voluntary basis, sometimes doing so for decades? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1157.3
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1160.0
I make the rather pedantic point that unpaid interns cannot be fearful about their livelihood, because they are not earning their living. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1160.4
My hon. Friend is being very generous. He mentions the four-week time limit that some consider justifiable. Unfortunately, his Bill does not set any time limit. That is one of its flaws. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1165.0
Does clause 1(b) not create a loophole in the Bill? If somebody took on a person to do unpaid work for the purpose of being a harmless drudge, to quote Dr Johnson on lexicographers, they would be entitled to do so, because it would not be for the purposes set out in subsection (b). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-04a.1155.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g1167.0
If the hon. Gentleman does not like IPSO, how can he think that IMPRESS is any better? It is approved by the state, and it is funded by one irritated celebrity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g833.0
I will cover that point, and then swiftly come to a conclusion. The amendment was passed on 11 October, but there has been no response to it, and this is the very last opportunity to decide whether this provision should pass into law. If it passes into law, the Scottish Parliament will have had no opportunity to give its consent to what, in effect, is the repatriation of a power from the Scottish Parliament to the UK Parliament. It is quite right that the Government have not asked for such consent, because the change has not been made on a Government amendment, but SNP Members might well have wanted to seek the guidance of their friends in the Scottish Government to determine whether this was acceptable and to get their consent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g825.2
I will leave the hon. and learned Lady to come back to this point in her own speech.These forms are very important. I would not pretend that I am anything other than a Unionist, but I believe that the Union will do well if we observe the norms and the courtesies between the various Parliaments. This Parliament must be exceptionally careful about overriding things that have been devolved, as media policy clearly has been, and we should therefore tread on such areas lightly.The SNP should be cautious about using this in a politically opportunistic way, however convenient that may be. There will come a time when it is politically convenient for those on the Treasury Bench not to use the Sewel convention, but to get a Back Bencher to table an amendment that will go through without needing the Government to ask for consent at a very late stage in the proceedings, perhaps even as an amendment to a Lords amendment, and such an amendment will go through, with the Sewel convention brushed aside. If SNP Members say that that is perfectly all right and that that is the way to do it, that will leave such conventions in disrepute and will lead to rows between the constituent Parliaments. Basically, disrespect will be shown by one Parliament of another, which will become very serious constitutionally. For a one-day win, they may be risking a constitutional imbroglio. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g825.4
In the event that such a legislative consent motion were refused, would the hon. and learned Lady expect the Queen to refuse to give Royal Assent to the Bill, because that would be the only way to stop the Bill becoming law? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g827.0
I want to focus on several aspects of Lords amendment 15. First, I want to focus on what it is designed to do, in which I think it is fundamentally wrong-headed. It provides for an increase in the penalty that will be applied to newspapers where an accusation of phone hacking is made in a case that is brought against them. That is difficult, because in the ordinary course of events, a newspaper will want to protect its sources. A newspaper that tried to protect its source for a story would not be able to prove the negative that phone hacking had not been involved, even when it had not been.The immediate risk will be that newspapers will be reluctant to print investigative stories because they will be unable to avoid the double penalty of extra costs, even in the event that their story was true. The particular outrage of amendment 15 is that the press could report a story accurately, fairly and honestly but still find that, if they were taken to court by an aggressive litigant, they would have to pay the litigant’s costs. That is an absolute charter for the very rich to bully the press into not publishing stories about them. It will not help the poorest in society, who will not be able to afford the initial fees to get a case going, but anybody with any funds will be able to use it as an opportunity to bully the press into not printing anything disagreeable about them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g822.0
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional press and local newspapers will simply not be able to print stories that are critical of almost anybody. Perhaps MPs do not want any critical stories to be printed about them. We would be able to bully the local papers in our constituencies by saying, “We will bring a court action against you, and, by the way, we think that you might have been hacking our telephone,” and they would risk double costs. That is absolutely ruinous to a free press at a local and national level, because such costs run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Even the biggest newspaper groups find that level of cost very difficult to absorb. The amendment will, therefore, get rid of the free press. Our press will be afraid to go after the rich and the powerful. It will be afraid to go after leading politicians whose friends can lend them the money to start a case off. It will be a supine press. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g823.1
That is not what the amendment does. It includes all the press, so the Midsomer Norton, Radstock and District Journal will be included, as will the Farrington Gurney parish magazine. Every single publication will be included and will be under this threat. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g823.3
My hon. Friend is right. Although some newspapers are part of bigger media groups, those media groups will not be willing to fund indefinitely loss-making newspapers. The journalism that is the core of not only the print media but most of what people get online, which is not covered by the measure anyway, comes from a narrowly profitable print media. If that ceases to have any chance of being profitable, where will all the internet content that people read for nothing come from? Where are the resources to provide us with investigations into wrongdoing? Wrongdoing—not only of politicians, but of institutions—is revealed year in, year out. Great footballing institutions were investigated by The Sunday Times. How will the newspaper be able to do that if it gets sued and has to pay double damages on merely the allegation that hacking has taken place? This is a real threat to press freedom.Press freedom is of the greatest possible value, and it is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom is such a stable polity. The press shines a light on corruption, on criminality and on wrongdoing. It holds people to account. It brings them to book. Why do we give an absolute protection to whatever is said in the House, so that it cannot be contested in any court outside Parliament? We give ourselves that protection because we so value freedom of speech. We should be extending that protection as widely as possible—not holding it narrowly to ourselves, but allowing the country at large to enjoy the same benefit.The chippy speeches made by those in the other place, and unfortunately in this House too, who have come under the spotlight of the press and had a rude story printed about them that they did not like—about a big scandal, a little scandal, something that caused offence or something that upset their spouse—ought not to be used to take away a fundamental constitutional protection of the greatest importance. That should not be done by the back door, by tacking something on to a completely different Bill in a hissy fit because the Secretary of State has not done it under existing legislation. That is quite a wrong way to proceed.That brings me on to the second part of what I want to say. The first part is of overwhelming importance: the freedom of the press is an absolute, and it is much, much better to have a free and irresponsible press than it is to have a responsible but Government-controlled press. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) would like me to say, the principle of England free rather than England sober should be at the heart of our understanding of the press.The constitutional aspects of how we legislate are also important, however. In this House we have very strict rules, which are implemented fairly by the Clerks and the Speaker, about the scope of Bills, and we cannot tack on random things that we feel it would be nice to have. The House of Lords, being a self-governing House, can tack things on. Its Members have lost the self-restraint that they used to have of following constitutional norms in relation to legislation. They showed that in the last Session of Parliament in relation to boundaries, and they are doing so again now. I am concerned that the SNP is not more worried about the Sewel convention. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g824.0
My hon. Friend makes a crucially important point. If SNP Members do not require the Sewel consents to be given, then implicitly, as we have an unwritten constitution and operate by convention, they would be giving media policy back to the United Kingdom Parliament. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g817.0
What the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said may well be true, but this is our last opportunity to approve or reject the amendment. If it goes back to the House of Lords, and all the other amendments that we make are agreed to, there will be no further opportunity to amend the Bill, so legislating now, without consent, would make the law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g817.4
We have developed a fascinating constitutional suggestion that amendments made by SNP Members of this House are senior to legislative consent motions given by the Scottish Parliament. SNP Members seem to be raising their status. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.815.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g818.3
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made reference to the Sewel convention and to the legislative consent motion being available in the Vote Office. The legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament is dated 6 October. Amendment 15—one of the most important amendments we will consider—was passed on 11 October and deals with a matter referred to by the noble Lord Howe as being outside the ordinary ambit of the Bill and a considerable advance from what was in the rest of the text. I am concerned, therefore, that amendment 15 by their lordships is not approved by the Sewel convention or covered by the legislative consent motion that we have received from the Scottish Parliament. I know that, strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Government, not the House of Commons itself, but I fear that the House would be doing a discourtesy to the Scottish Parliament if we were to proceed to legislate on a devolved matter, which media policy is. It would be helpful to have your guidance, and perhaps ruling, on where we should go with the Sewel convention, and perhaps for the Government to clarify their position. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.813.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g814.2
I suppose I had better begin by declaring an hereditary interest rather than a direct one.I want to commend my right hon. Friend for her excellent statement. She is clearly right to be reviewing this, because the system cannot be working when IMPRESS, funded by a degenerate libertine who was embarrassed by free newspapers a few years ago, has only 50 subscribers, and IPSO, representing the vast swathe of the press, has 2,500 subscribers. She is quite right to review that, and also right to defend the freedom of the press, which is more important than the press being responsible. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-01a.797.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g804.1
We should insist that we have certain powers, but my concern with bringing someone to the Bar of the House is that it is unduly theatrical and would make the House of Commons look foolish in the public arena, rather than making us look wise and providential. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-27a.443.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g450.0
The people of Somerset are rejoicing at the clarity of the Prime Minister’s approach to leaving the European Union. To encourage further rejoicing, will she confirm my understanding that once we have left the European Union, the European Court of Justice will have no jurisdiction of any kind whatsoever as the final arbiter of any UK law? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-24a.25.4&s=speaker%3A24926#g41.3
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who expressed himself with such vim and vigour.The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is an important motion and a proper subject for us to debate. It is something that we have been debating for hundreds of years. The earliest debate I can find for deciding to limit the House of Lords is in 1719, and we will all remember that the Parliament Act 1911 states that it is a temporary measure until a more democratic means of choosing an upper House can be found.These problems are not new, and there are serious problems with the House of Lords. I do not think anyone would try to pretend otherwise. It is not by any means perfect and its imperfection is partly in its size, partly in its unaccountability and partly, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire so rightly said, in its Liberal Democrats. I do not say that as a cheap shot against the Liberal Democrats, though those are perfectly fun. I say it because the very large number of Lib Dems who are there, who are abusing their position in the Lords to thwart the will of the elected Government, have made a real problem for the Government and for the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords. There are unquestionably problems, but what is the solution?What we have considered in previous Parliaments is a democratically elected upper House. That sounds very sensible in theory, but there is a fundamental problem for us in this House that if we have a democratically elected House of Lords, its powers will be equal to ours. Even if the letter of the law allows us to overrule the Lords, that will soon cease to be a political reality. A democratically elected House of Lords challenges the Commons, and if a democratically elected House of Lords is on a different electoral system, it might even claim a higher validity than we have and therefore the right to overrule us. Then we would probably have a gridlocked system like that in the United States, with the two Houses being unable to co-operate and an inability to govern and to get legislation through. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-19c.875.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g902.4
That was part of the problem. The other problem was that they were quite unwilling to set out what they would do between the conventions that both Houses have. If those conventions are legislated for, who is to determine whether the conventions are followed? Would that be the courts, and then would the courts interfere in Parliament? Or would the conventions be decided by consensus between the two Houses? In that case we would be back to the gridlock that I was warning about.That is why the problem has not been solved. There is not a good democratic solution unless we are willing to downgrade the House of Commons, which I personally would be very much against doing. With our constituency-based relationship we have a wonderful system of democracy through this House. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a very powerful speech earlier, but I disagree with him in thinking that the reform to constituencies is gerrymandering. It really is not. It is getting the numbers to be equal, which is a proper thing to do.It would be wrong to fight the next general election on the electoral roll from 2000. That needs to be updated, and although the later the date the better—so I am not unsympathetic to the call to move it on two years later— that is not practical. It cannot be done on the absolutely last electoral roll, but by doing it every five years, we ensure that there is continuity in updating and a regular fairness in the size of the constituencies. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point and think it is important, through that constituency link, to defend the primacy of this House, which is the democratic House.That is why I am less worried than the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about the failures of the House of Lords. Ultimately we are in charge. We can use the 1911 Parliament Act. We may decide to use that to do something on statutory instruments if the House of Lords challenges the Government on their democratically mandated implementation of policy. The democratic right overrides the undemocratic element. That gives me certainty and security that the nation is not becoming the People’s Republic of China, Lesotho or whatever other random examples have been brought up, because they do not have that democratic underpinning. Therefore, the size of the House of Lords is just a problem that we will have to live with.In 1719, the main reason for opposing a limit on the numbers in the House of Lords was that a limit would make the Members who were already there more powerful because their power could not be diluted by adding more peers. That remains true today, because the one great authority this Chamber still retains over the House of Lords, via the Prime Minister, is not so much the 1911 Act, but the threat of creating many more peers, which was, of course, threatened in 1832 and in 1911—on both occasions to ensure the democratic will could prevail. We must maintain the ability to do that, even while recognising that the House of Lords is too big and has problems. However, this needs to be an evolutionary reform, which I would happily go into, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on another occasion. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-19c.875.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g903.1
On the number of Ministers, the maximum is set by legislation. It is not purely in the gift of the Prime Minister. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-19c.875.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g890.2
The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair on that point. I think that the decision was made to reduce the number of MPs because in 2010, when the policy came forward, there was a great deal of public feeling that MPs had become too expensive. It was a response to the national mood at the time. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-19c.875.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g885.1
Along with other Members, I want to pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has run a terrific campaign on this issue, worked tirelessly, set up the APPG and raised an issue that ought to be of the greatest concern to all Members because it goes, in a way, to the heart of how Governments behave. I want to focus on the inquiry and the need to establish faith with the families who have been involved with what has happened in relation to Primodos.It seems to me that there is a strong prima facie case that something was wrong with this drug, that it was known to the authorities and that they failed to act on it for an extended period. The first warning about it was on 11 July 1967 and the adverse reaction committee felt that there were grounds for further investigation, yet it was eight years later in 1975 when it was said that Primodos was not to be prescribed for women who were pregnant. That seems to me so irresponsible, when the risks of prescribing drugs to pregnant women are so particularly high.Governments are amazingly good at apologising for things that happened so long ago that there is nothing that can be done about them. I seem to remember that one Government apologised for the Irish potato famine 150 years after it had happened. That does no good to anybody. What Governments need to do is to put things right when people are still alive and affected by the failings that took place. But when they have not acted, when time has gone by, the onus of proof shifts to them.It is for Governments at that point to show how well they are behaving and how properly they are going through the process. It is for them to rebuild the trust with the families, not for the families to accept guarantees from the Government without any depth to them. Therefore, with the appointments to this inquiry, the information that is being made available to it and the investigations that are taking place, the Government have a long way to go to re-establish a trust that was probably lost as long ago as 1975. It is in that context that I hope the Minister will respond to make it clear that the Government understand the strength of the case that has been made, will be looking at it with a genuinely open mind, and will see not that things can be put right, but at least that some amelioration should be made if it is found in the end that there was fault in what the Government did, what the regulator did and, of course, what the drug company did.There are so many bits and pieces that cause suspicion—the disappearance of records is a particularly important one. Where did those records go, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East asked? A lot of the information is in German and there is a question over whether it is being translated even for the committee. When such issues hang over an inquiry, the Government have a lot of work to do to re-establish trust so that Members of this House and, more importantly, the people affected can believe that the inquiry is fair.Once again, I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she has done. I do not want to go into specific cases because I think those will be judged by the inquiry and that it will be a proper process to investigate whether the evidence is there on a widespread scale, but with such a strong base case, as we already know, we must have an inquiry that people can trust. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-13b.519.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g541.0
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate, and I reiterate and agree with what she says. When at the heart of the matter there is a regulator who took eight years to act between 1967 and 1975, and many years later is investigating what it had done, it is crucial that that inquiry is seen to be independent and full. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-13b.519.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g521.0
I want to return to the topic under debate, which is how this House will scrutinise the Brexit process. To do that, we need to go back to first principles. What is the power and authority of this House? What is the sovereignty of Parliament, and where does it come from? Here, I take a view that will be popular with the SNP. I believe that the sovereignty of Parliament is delegated by the British people. We do not have sovereignty in this House in a vacuum. It is not that God suddenly created the House of Commons and said it would be sovereign over the United Kingdom. Every five years, the British people delegate their sovereignty and rights to us, to implement as we see fit; we then present ourselves for re-election when that period is ended.Within that, we have had a referendum. It is fascinating to hear from all sides, left, right and centre, that everyone has accepted the result and that the will of the British people must be obeyed, respected and followed—[Interruption.] That is the will of the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which, I am glad to say, includes the good people and crofters of Na h-Eileanan an Iar. That needs to be put into practice.We also know, because this is the legal advice that has gone unchallenged, that the only legal way of leaving the European Union is to exercise article 50. We therefore know that the vote on 23 June was a vote to exercise article 50. All that is under debate is the point at which that is done; the big decision has been taken by the British people. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-12b.313.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g371.0
The hon. Gentleman should check the record. Unfortunately, North East Somerset was not counted separately; we were infected by the votes of people in Bath. I am pretty confident that the wise people of rural Somerset voted to leave while the urbanites in Bath voted to remain.Once Parliament has used that delegated authority to ask the people, who after all are our employers, what their will is, it must be followed. Everybody accepts that, so we come to the point of debating when we will put the notice under article 50 to the European Council so that it knows that that is our decision.That is properly determined by the Government, which is where we get into the constitutional norms. You, Mr Speaker, have raised the standard of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive in the past six of seven years to a proper height. I am strongly supportive of that continuing. We should all, particularly Back Benchers of the governing party, remember that we are here to hold the Government to account, and not just willy-nilly to support it, but within that we must recognise that there is a proper and constitutional sphere for Government activity. There is and long has been a separation of powers. The Government introduce their policy and their legislation to get it through, and they have the clear responsibility for the negotiation of treaties.Against that, no Government can exist unless they have the confidence of the House. As I understand it, if at any day the Leader of the Opposition chooses to table a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, Mr Speaker will take it urgently. Therefore, if the House resents or opposes any part of the negotiation or discussion, the Government may be removed and a new one put in their place. That does not mean that we should prevent the Government from exercising the proper role of the Executive. The Government are answerable to us in how they use that power. How often that happens has already been shown: we have had two statements from the Brexit Secretary; and a Select Committee has just been set up—it was voted for last night—that will hold the two new Departments to account and have hearings.As it happens, I think there will be a vote on article 50. May I draw the House’s attention to Standing Orders Nos. 143(1)(ii) and 143(1)(vi), which provide for the type of documents that go to the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration? It is very hard to see the exercise of article 50 falling outside the definition listed in Standing Order No. 143. It seems to me that the European Scrutiny Committee, which has the responsibility for determining what matters are of sufficient legal and political importance to be debated, would decide that the exercise of article 50 meets that test for legal and political significance. Although it is right for the Government to determine the date, and although it is a proper exercise both of the prerogative and of the Executive arm of our system, none the less under our Standing Orders it will almost certainly come before the House, as will the other parts of the process, such as the great repeal Bill.The great repeal Bill is an interesting approach but a very sensible one that the Government have decided on because it gives certainty. We have heard calls for certainty from the Opposition Benches again and again. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-12b.313.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g372.0
The voice of Scunthorpe speaks and rightly calls from a height for business certainty. Business will have certainty because the law will not change on the day we leave. All the laws will have been repatriated. They will be our laws rather than laws that are domesticated, as they currently are, through the European Communities Act 1972. It then becomes a matter for routine political debate as to whether we keep the regulations that have come from the European Union or get rid of them. I have a feeling that I would want to get rid of rather more than Opposition Members would, but then I must put that to the electorate of North East Somerset, and the hon. Gentleman must put it to the electors of Scunthorpe, and we will find out what the people want.That is the great prize of Brexit. For as we debate how this House will scrutinise, suddenly we are in charge of scrutinising everything. We have not delegated our powers to Brussels to determine how we are regulated with a mere cursory glance over the top when the rules come pouring in. We have given back to this House the right to determine how we are governed.The motion, therefore, is misplaced and misfires. It suggests that there will not be proper scrutiny of the Executive in the process of leaving, which is wrong. There is, every step of the way, going to be considerable scrutiny, which has already started. It implies that the situation might be worse than it was before, when there the reverse is true. We suddenly recapture that ancient power we have had: to seek redress of grievance, because the Government cannot say “Not decided here”; to legislate, because our laws cannot be overturned by judges in a foreign land; and to hold the Government to account on behalf of our electors.That is the great democratic prize and it is from this that our prosperity will come, because we know that our prosperity does not exist in a vacuum. It comes because of our constitutional systems that allow for stability, business, the rule of law and capitalism to flourish. When we are doing it for ourselves, it will be better, it will be stronger and it will be more democratic. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-12b.313.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g373.0
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-12b.313.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g341.3
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago that people wanted certainty beyond 2020. Is he aware that the multi-annual financial framework will not be renewed until 2020, and therefore that there is uncertainty even if we remain within the European Union as to how funding will continue after that date, including for the crofters of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-12b.313.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g341.7
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-11d.213.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g233.0
While my hon. Friend is on about sport, may the Bill not help Somerset win the county championship for the first time ever, after coming second this year? Would that not be a real triumph after Yorkshire and Middlesex stitched it up? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-11d.213.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g233.2
I hope you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, for giving the Ladybird guide to the constitution. Her Majesty’s Government are behaving completely correctly and traditionally. It is for the Government to determine treaties, and it is for Parliament to decide whether to bring them into legislation. If Parliament does not like the Government of the day, it can always hold a vote of confidence in that Government to change the negotiating stance. It seems to me that the Opposition may not want that, as they have a record of losing elections at the moment. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-10-10b.39.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g56.2
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the DVLA does not give out motorists' data to organisations which will misuse it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-14.46374.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g46374.q0
Does my right hon. Friend agree that academic excellence is a good in and of itself, and therefore that something that is academically the best is worth having and that everything else around it is fundamentally secondary? I also congratulate her on opening up faith schools. That will be particularly welcomed by the Catholic Church, which has a fantastic record on faith schools in some of the most disadvantaged and diverse communities. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-09-12b.601.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g621.0
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I accept that that is not a question but a statement. May I go on to point out to him that Brexit provides a great opportunity? The £24 billion purchase of ARM by SoftBank is a sign of that. The trade deals that are being offered are a sign of that. Will he grasp this fantastic opportunity and lead us through to the “broad, sunlit uplands”? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-07-19c.663.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g665.4
In terms of the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, is it not true that that sovereignty is delegated by the British people, not given to us by divine right? It is absurd to think of the sovereignty of Parliament as being by divine right as it is the divine right of kings. The British people have spoken and given us a mandate, and that mandate must be fulfilled, but the details of that mandate will no doubt be implemented by legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-07-11d.22.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g29.0
All I would like to do today is thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his years of service to the party and the country. Had the result been the other way round, I hope that my side would have behaved with the dignity and nobility that he has shown. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-06-27b.21.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g39.4
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the soft drinks industry levy on levels of employment; and if he will make a statement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-05-26.38692.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g38692.q0
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has made an estimate of the potential effect of the soft drinks industry levy on the (a) consumer price index and (b) cost of uprating index-linked benefits; and if he will make a statement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-05-26.38693.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g38693.q0
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, am I not right in thinking that it is a customary courtesy in this House for people, though they do not have to, to give way in speeches that last over 20 minutes? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-05-18a.6.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g17.1
May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for showing himself also to be gallant in defending the Home Secretary’s position? There seem to be a couple of errors in her speech. One was that she said it was the European Court of Human Rights that stopped us deporting foreign people, when it was in fact the ECJ that stopped Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law being removed, contrary to the Home Secretary’s view.On the issue of whether we have to be in the European convention on human rights while in the EU, I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to article 6.3 of the treaty on European Union:“Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention …shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”Furthermore, the Commission, when asked specifically what would happen if a member state left the convention, said it would consider using article 7, which allows for the suspension of a member’s voting rights. It seems to me that, for once, European treaties are written in clear language that is understandable even to non-lawyers. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-04-26a.1289.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1300.0
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this great success for parliamentary scrutiny, and I suggest that it is better to proceed in a non-statutory way. Bringing statute into the proceedings of the House always presents longer term problems, and setting a non-statutory precedent has lots of advantages. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-04-19c.805.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g820.2
Over 200,000 economic migrants came from the European Union in the period for which we have figures. Yet the propaganda sheet sent out to the British people claims that we maintain control of our borders. Have we withdrawn from the free movement of people, or is that sheet simply untrue? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-04-13c.343.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g352.6
May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s generous comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is so widely respected on these Benches? Does the Prime Minister agree that two of the three greatest reforms of the Government he leads are restoring fiscal rectitude and welfare reform? May I therefore encourage him to continue with both equally? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-21a.1244.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1259.2
In broad terms, the Budget is extremely welcome. It continues the extremely sensible policies that the Chancellor set out as long ago as 2010, the essence of which is on page 127 of the Red Book, which sets out receipts and expenditure as percentages of GDP. Tax receipts will run at 35.7%, 36.3%, 36.9%, 36.9% and 37% of GDP over the next few years, which is in accordance with the normal long-run averages. Only in the highest years of tax receipts, going back to the 1970s, has taxation in this country managed to get as high as 38%. That sets out a limit for public expenditure if there is to be a balance, which it is obviously important to achieve when the economy is going well. We therefore see that public expenditure will be managed in line with the receipts that will come in, so that expenditure will be less than receipts by the end of the period.That is absolutely what the Chancellor promised all those years ago when he said that he would mend the roof when the sun was shining. A glimmer of sun has come through the clouds of international crisis and the Chancellor has been busy on his ladder fixing the roof with his nails, his hammer and his wood. The process is now nearing completion, for which he deserves a great deal of credit.Turning to the details of the Budget, the Chancellor also deserves much credit for his reforms of corporate taxation. It was Napoleon who first called us a nation of shopkeepers, and I noticed that the Chancellor quoted Napoleon in his speech. That may say something about his European ambitions, with which I am in less agreement, but we are indeed a nation of shopkeepers. Reducing the burdens of rates, VAT and bureaucracy is only to be welcomed and is thoroughly desirable. Ensuring that multinationals pay taxation according to law is also desirable, but it is always worth remembering that tax avoidance is perfectly legal. If tax is being avoided, it is for this House to change the law so that tax must be paid. It is not some moral virtue to pay more tax than the law requires, so removing loopholes is to be much commended.I fully support the broad thrust of what the Chancellor is doing. He has got it right, and most of his tax measures are welcome, particularly his changes to personal taxation, an area in which I would like him to go further. Having made £8 billion from cutting the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in the pound, he should go further in an exuberant, Laffer-like fashion and cut it back to the rate at which Gordon Brown had it throughout his period as Chancellor.The area with which I find the most disagreement is found on page 19 of the Red Book, which sets out the economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the nationalists, who so crave independence for themselves, none the less wish to be shackled to the European Union—it is one of their idiosyncrasies that many of us find so charming. If I may, I will deal with that extraordinarily tendentious page, strewn with errors, overstatement and over-egging of pudding. Let us start with the very first line, which states:“Membership of the EU has increased the UK’s openness to trade and investment”.That is entirely disputable. In fact, all our membership has done is put us in a customs union with very high levels of regulation and a high external tariff. The tariff on dairy products coming into this country is 42%, much to the disadvantage of our friends in New Zealand. So EU membership has not made us more open; it has closed us to some areas.Page 19 continues with the statement:“The UK’s full access to the single market…clearly increases the openness of the British economy”.There is a word for that, and it is “balderdash”. What access to the single market does is put the dead hand of regulation on the 95% of British businesses that never trade with the continent. They are suffering from that regulation, and their business is made harder to do. This has nothing to do with openness; it is to do with burdens.Then we get to a bit that I think shows the Chancellor’s wonderful and sophisticated sense of humour. He says:“At the February 2016 European Council, the Prime Minister secured a new settlement for the UK in a reformed EU.”It has to be said that the EU was most certainly not reformed at that Council, and our settlement in it was so small as to be hardly noticeable. At the same time it gave away our ability to veto any treaty for fiscal union to follow the monetary union. We said we would do nothing to obstruct that, so we gave away our strongest negotiating hand for nothing—for thin gruel. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-16b.987.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1019.0
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that fishing and farming—the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy—are two of the great disasters of the European Union. The fact that they are not reformed and take so much of the budget—40% in the case of agriculture—is a considerable disgrace. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-16b.987.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1020.1
Oh the great panjandrums, all with glee, merrily gather to support the Government, in the hope of their knighthoods, their peerages and so on. But when I speak to Somerset farmers, the finest farmers in the land, I see that they value the independence of their nation above a cheap ride from Brussels. Furthermore, we pay into the CAP almost double what we get out, so our farmers could have more money if we were independent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-16b.987.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1021.1
I will not give way again, because I do not get a bonus minute for doing so and I need my minutes in this particular debate.I want to get on to the third paragraph on page 19 of the Red Book, which talks of the “profound economic shock” that would be created by leaving. There is the over-egging of the pudding to which I was referring. The OBR is characteristically measured, saying that in the timescales with which it deals it is not possible to model any changes from leaving the European Union, but the Red Book says otherwise. It states that there will be years of uncertainty, but that assumes that our partners in Europe will lie and cheat. But they are our friends, or so the Government will have us believe, and article 50 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for a very straightforward two-year process for extracting ourselves, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said he will exercise if Brexit is successful. Again, what the Red Book says is exaggerated, wrong and bordering on the hysterical. It then goes on to talk about the single market in services, but that has still not been completed. It was something the Prime Minister was arguing for and did not get in the rather hopeless renegotiation he tried in Brussels not so long ago.The final paragraph of page 19 states:“Remaining in a reformed EU will make the UK stronger, safer and better off.”[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General cheers from a sedentary position, as he has cheered these points since he was speaking to Edward Heath many years ago and thought that that was the way forward.The EU fails in all that it does: it fails in the common agricultural policy; it fails in the common fisheries policy; and it fails in migration policy. The euro has been ruinous for those member states that have joined it. The idea that we are richer and securer with this disastrous project is cloud cuckoo land stuff. It is broad sunlit uplands for the UK economy if we deregulate, if we trade with the rest of the world, and if we look beyond this narrow European focus.You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Conservatives complained that the Red Book, instead of being the austere document that set out the facts of the economy, was used to spin the Government’s view of the world. What a pity it is that this Red Book is following the Gordon Brown model of Red Books, rather than that higher tone that previous Tory Chancellors have followed.I want to finish with one point on which I disagree with Her Majesty’s Government even more than I do over Europe—[Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] Surely, yes. I am talking about the outrageous proposals to bring my county of Somerset under the yoke of Bristol in this devolved metro Mayor system that none of my constituents want. We admire Bristol. We think Bristol is a fine and fabulous city, but it does not need to have Somerset money to subsidise it. It can live off its own. We tried all this with Avon. What Avon meant was that Somerset paid and Bristol spent. I am glad to say that the unitary authorities of the west of England area—what used to be known as Avon and will be Avon again if the Government have their way—will each individually be able to vote down this proposal. I will urge councillors in north-east Somerset—I know that councillors in north Somerset have previously rejected the same idea—to stand firm and not be bullied by the Government. They should not be seduced by £30 million a year, which is considerably less divided by four than the cuts that they have successfully implemented over the past six years. They must be bold and independent. I want independence for my nation, and I want independence for my county. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-16b.987.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1021.3
I am not Scottish, otherwise I hate to think what I might be saying in that regard. I am a Briton, and I am for the Union because my country is the United Kingdom. I want freedom for the United Kingdom and freedom for Somerset. I say no to devolution and no to European tyranny. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-16b.987.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1022.1
As the Lord High Chancellor is the keeper of the Queen’s conscience, is it not inconceivable that he could misapply his conscience to Her Majesty? In the Privy Council oath, Privy Counsellors are asked to swear:“You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.”How, therefore, can members of the Privy Council go off and be European Commissioners swearing allegiance to the European Union? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-14b.653.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g655.3
I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristic courtesy in coming to the House in person to answer the urgent question. Is this not a very interesting case study of the difference between the European Union and NATO? NATO manages to get on and save lives in a problematic situation for which the EU must take at least a large share of the blame, and which has been exacerbated by the consequences of Chancellor Merkel’s decision. While NATO is there, actively doing things, the best—the most mealy-mouthed meeting of murmurating Ministers—that can be provided by the European Union does nothing. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-07b.23.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g34.5
I am in complete support of my right hon. Friend the Minister and entirely in disagreement with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who is a very civilised gentleman. When he said that this was a pseudo-constitutional issue, he could not have been more wrong. This House’s democratic authority is wholly based on financial privilege, which is why, when we reject amendments that engage financial privilege, we give no further reason. Not only is that important to the current Government, but it will be important to the Opposition when they are in government, too. If the House of Lords can challenge the Commons on matters of financial privilege, then the country becomes ungovernable. Those who have the democratic mandate have a right, because of the people whom they represent, to determine issues relating to finance. The other place is increasingly trespassing on that right. The amendment that it passed in lieu decided to give it the right to consider the secondary legislation on a financial matter, which it does not need to do; it has taken it from primary to secondary, upgrading their role on a financial matter. Constitutionally, that is quite wrong. Any Member of this House who thinks that, one day, he may speak from the Treasury Bench Dispatch Box should bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the constitutional norms are maintained. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-02b.1043.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1058.1
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-02b.1043.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1053.0
If my right hon. Friend’s rather apocalyptic view of our leaving the European Union is correct, was it not irresponsible and inaccurate of the Prime Minister to say that he ruled nothing out prior to the completion of the most unsatisfactory renegotiation? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-03-01d.800.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g802.2
Let me bring to my hon. Friend’s attention the fact that the person representing the United States Government who has called for us to stay is John Kerry, a former senator, who in the 1980s showed himself to be no friend of the United Kingdom but a sympathiser with the IRA when he held up a treaty allowing for the deportation of IRA activists from the United States to the United Kingdom, saying that the justice system in Northern Ireland did not work effectively. He is no friend of Britain and has been in the past a terrorist sympathiser. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-26a.593.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g612.0
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g563.1
It was very reassuring to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tell us earlier that he is a Eurosceptic and explain how successful the renegotiations were from his Eurosceptic ivory tower. That is encouraging, but I thought it might be worth looking at what the renegotiations achieved compared with what Her Majesty’s Government set out. In the Conservative party manifesto, it was “an absolute requirement”, according to the opening of the paragraph, that child benefit not be given to anybody whose children are living abroad. It seems to me that that has not been achieved, so our Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has failed in that regard.The Conservative party manifesto stated that we would“reform the workings of the EU, which is too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic”.The workings of the EU post the renegotiation remain too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic, so my Eurosceptic friend has achieved nothing.In the Conservative party manifesto we made to the British people a pledge and a promise, on which we campaigned in, I hope, good faith. We said that we would“reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf”—not yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that of the British people—“and safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.We have not reclaimed a single power, so, in that, my Eurosceptic friend the Foreign Secretary has failed to live up to the Eurosceptic credentials of which he boasts—and with which I credit him, because the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man.My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that what we needed was fundamental and far-reaching reform. We have not achieved fundamental and far-reaching reform; his Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has, in that regard, let him down. In the renegotiations, we have not achieved anything of any great substance. On the free movement of people, we have nothing. We have so little on the issue of benefits that the great mass migration will continue. It was announced today that 257,000 people came from the European Union in the last year, 55,000 of them from Bulgaria and Romania. My Eurosceptic friend has done nothing to change that.My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Bloomberg speech:“Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.”But that plague is to continue, and the renegotiations have done nothing to stop it. They have not summoned Moses back to try to deal with it, as I seem to remember he finally got rid of the plague of frogs that afflicted Pharaoh. On immigration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he thought it was essential to“restore a sense of fairness”and“to make our immigration system fairer and reduce the current exceptionally high level of migration from…the EU”.Nothing has been done to achieve that.Not only is the renegotiation a failure because it has achieved so little—it has failed to tackle the problems that we promised the British electorate we would solve—but, worse than that, we have given away our negotiating card when the European Union comes to a fundamental treaty reform of its own. The document that was settled last weekend states:“Member states whose currency is not the euro shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area and shall refrain from measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of economic and monetary union.”The Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary—the honourable man to whom I referred—has managed, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to give away our most powerful negotiating card. When the European Union needs to develop the fiscal union that it has asked for, we have nothing to say because we have promised that we will do nothing.And so, we have left ourselves still on the path to a European superstate. That state has been getting bigger and bigger since we joined it in 1972—a state that has a flag; a state that has an anthem; a state that, because it is greedy, has not one but five Presidents; a state with a Parliament that has not one, but two seats of operation; a state with the symbols of statehood and the powers of a state. It has legal personality to conduct treaty negotiations. It has the legal power to make laws, and those laws are senior to our laws.My right hon. Friend the famously Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary said that the treaty is legally robust, but he phrased himself very carefully, with the pedantry that one would hope for and expect in somebody from the Foreign Office. He said that it was robust in terms of international law. That gives it no justiciability in the courts of the European Union; it is merely taken into account.We have a pretty worthless agreement, and we have scare stories to tell us why we should not vote no. If it was dangerous—if he thought the world would collapse on the day we voted no—why did the Prime Minister offer us a referendum? Is he some hooligan or some Yahoo who thinks it is safe to risk this nation’s future by trusting the people? When he said he ruled nothing out, surely he meant it. Surely he was not saying that, in fact, he was always going to go along with whatever our friends in Brussels said, because the Prime Minister is a most trustworthy figure, who negotiates in good faith. That is the problem with all that underlies this negotiation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g551.0
We do effectively have open borders for Belgians. Belgian passport holders can come here without so much as a by your leave. They come through and we cannot refuse them unless we have specific evidence. If we could make them apply in advance and get clearance, as we have to before going to the United States, our borders would clearly be safer. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g538.0
Will my right hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g493.3
On child benefit, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the agreement does not meet the promise set out in the Conservative party manifesto, which said:“If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid”?That has not been achieved. It is a failure. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g494.0
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. He phrases himself incredibly carefully. He says, quite correctly, that the agreement is binding in international law, which is not justiciable, but it is not binding in European law, where it has only to be taken into account by the European Court of Justice. Nor is it irreversible, otherwise section A(7) could not say:“The substance of this Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States.”If it requires the respective constitutional procedures of the member states, that means that if they are not followed, it will not be implemented. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-25a.489.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g495.2
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on spending 40 hours—apparently four clean shirts and a packet of Haribo—in implementing the Labour party manifesto in his conversations in Brussels? Does this not actually show the problem: that for so much labour he has achieved so little, and that the EU is a failing organisation—a failed common fisheries policy, a failed common agricultural policy, a single market that shackles us with regulation that makes us fundamentally uncompetitive, an immigration system that is betraying people who get to Europe, not to mention the eurozone which, thank heavens, we are not a member of? In this failed organisation, the Prime Minister has said in his statement that we are to make a final decision. It is the one sentence of his statement that I fundamentally agree with: a final decision to be made in June as to whether we stay with a failed body or whether we leave and make our own path. Is the Government’s policy basically,“And always keep a-hold of NurseFor fear of finding something worse.”? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-22c.20.8&s=speaker%3A24926#g47.2
In the unlikely circumstance that a Government less benign than the current one were to have a Member arrested on a trumped-up charge, would that Member have the right to insist that Mr Speaker brought it to the attention of the House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-10a.1693.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1695.2
I am grateful for a second go. Is my hon. Friend saying that if the House has a chance to ascertain whether it is a breach of privilege, the Member concerned will also have the right to insist on it being made public by Mr Speaker? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-10a.1693.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1695.4
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many accidents have occurred on trains involving slam doors in each of the last five years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-01-28.24740.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g24740.q0
It is a great pleasure to follow my near neighbour in Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh), who gave a fantastic calculation as to why, on balance, it would be right to leave. I know that the people of Somerset will respond warmly to the lead he has given them.I want to pick up on a couple of threads mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) relating to parliamentary sovereignty. We sometimes get into the idea that parliamentary sovereignty comes out of a vacuum, but in fact it is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is the way we represent the sovereignty of the British people. They delegate to us, for five years, the right to make laws in their name, but at the end of those five years they expect to have the sovereignty returned to them intact, so that they can decide how it should be used in future.In that sense, I am very close to the Scottish understanding of the sovereignty of the people, because it comes from them and belongs to them. It is not ours to give away; it is ours to protect, return and operate within. It is not about us as individual Members of Parliament or these grand rooms; it is about the rights of the British people and their ability to achieve through us the things that they have expected to achieve for centuries. I am thinking primarily of redress of grievance and the right to hold the Government to account.That is why the issue is so difficult. Although it is possible to hold a Minister to account and to seek redress of grievance through this House in those areas that remain a domestic competence, as soon as an issue goes beyond these shores and becomes a European competence, it is impossible to obtain redress of grievance through this House. Indeed, in my correspondence with a Minister on behalf of a constituent, I was told that, although the Minister was sympathetic to my constituent’s plight, if he were given the redress he needed the British Government would themselves be fined. He could not, therefore, get that redress. That is a fundamental attack on parliamentary sovereignty which is there for the right reason.On the renegotiation, the hon. Member for Glenrothes made an interesting point. He said that he thought many of us would vote against anyway, because we are so desperate and gasping at the bit to leave, and that, whatever happened, we would not have been willing to accept what the Prime Minister came up with. I do not accept that. I think that this was an opportunity for fundamental reform, but that has not happened. I do believe that the Government have acted in good faith—I do not believe they have got it right, but I do accept their good faith.The Government have, however, negotiated around the edges. They are, perhaps, so steeped in the ways of the machinations of the European Union that they have failed to see the big picture and think that, when negotiating with 27 other countries and the Commission, it is an amazing achievement to get the right to hold a discussion on the difference in view between the Euro-outs and Euro-ins. It is like dealing with a brick wall—for want of a better cliché coming immediately to mind—so even being allowed a discussion results in them thinking, “Whoopee! We’ve achieved something very important that we can present to the British electorate.”If we look from a further distance at what the Prime Minister has said over a number of years, what he promised in his Bloomberg speech and what we put in our manifesto, we see that they were not about pettifogging changes around the edges; they were about fundamental reform and the reassertion of sovereignty. Because the renegotiations were in that sense so narrow, so weak and so uninspired, the status quo is not an option in the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, the choice is not between leaving and staying exactly as we are; it is between leaving and remaining in a Union moving towards ever closer union.If we look at our past opt-outs, we will see that that is true. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the social chapter no longer exists. It is incorporated in the treaty, so our opt-out came and went, as a frost on a winter morning might disappear as the sun comes out. Our opt-out on Schengen is there and it is important, but recently we agreed that we would be part of an EU border force: there is a migration problem, and the solution to it is of course more Europe and more European integration. We are going along with that, although we are not formally part of it. The Dublin treaties on returning people to the place where they first sought sanctuary are coming under threat, which would make our position outside Schengen very difficult to manage.On justice and home affairs, we got an opt-out under the treaty of Lisbon, but again and again we have given more away. We have given away the arrest warrant and we have given away Prüm, so investigation and arrest are now in the hands of the European Union. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-04a.1119.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g1147.2
The European Union Act 2011 was a protection, but it was also part of a coalition deal, so it ensured that things that the Lib Dems were quite keen on would not automatically trigger a referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have had a referendum on giving back the things that we had claimed when we opted out of justice and home affairs matters a little over a year ago. Now that arrest and investigation are determined at a European level, the argument for some European centralised oversight will only become stronger. If a Bulgarian issues an arrest warrant that is effective in the United Kingdom, surely there needs to be some European common standard to ensure that that is done properly.The direction of travel is towards more Europe. Even in the context of monetary union, we should bear it in mind that we only have an opt-out from stage 3. We are committed to stages 1 and 2. The European Union has not enforced those in recent years, for obvious reasons, but that will not always be the case. We are committed—article 142 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is relevant to this—to our currency being of interest to the European Union. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-04a.1119.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g1149.1
My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right: there is no common people, but there is an elite who have this vision that more Europe is the answer to a maiden’s prayer. Let is look at the treatment of Greece, and how it suffered through its membership of the euro, which was forced upon it. Greece was encouraged and egged on by the European Union and the Commission to adopt the euro, partly because it was the birthplace of democracy, and how outrageous if it did not join in this grand political scheme. When it got into difficulties, which economists knew it would get into, what was the answer from the European Union? More Europe, more control over its affairs, more direction over what it does and less domestic democracy. In what happened in Greece, we see the clash that is in the motion before us. We have a choice between moving to a single European state or maintaining the sovereignty that is still ours. To do that, we have to vote to leave. Texas maintained that it had the right to leave the United States; it did not. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-04a.1119.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g1149.3
In 2014-15, 183,000 economic migrants came from the European Union, none of whom would have been deterred by anything we have heard so far. Ever closer union may be taken out of the preamble, but it remains in the essential text of all the treaties. On protecting the “euro-outs”, all that will happen is that there will be a discussion—and there are plenty of discussions in the European Union—and, on competitiveness, that has been part of the European Union’s own ambition since the Lisbon agenda of 1999.The thin gruel has been further watered down. My right hon. Friend has a fortnight, I think, in which to salvage his reputation as a negotiator. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-03a.925.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g946.5
I am not convinced by my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the Prime Minister’s delay, which is that we need to study the document, because although it is characteristically long on words, it is short on substance. May I draw his attention to page 15, where it notes that the emergency brake in relation to immigration will operate on a proposal from the Commission, and to the draft legislation relating to the euro outs, which says that, if there is opposition to the Council adopting something by qualified majority, the Council shall discuss the issue? Well, that is an enormous difference from what we currently have. I just wonder whether the next 24 hours will allow Downing Street the opportunity to try to make bricks without straw. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-02a.779.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g789.2
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and to learn the phrase, “Couldn’t run a ménage”, which I hope will replace, “Couldn’t run a whelk stall”. I have always thought that was probably rather difficult anyway, so “ménage” is a better term.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on bringing forward this debate and on his amazing achievement in getting some redress of grievance not only for his own constituents but for many of our constituents, mine included. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation behaved quite disgracefully towards one of my constituents. It sold an interest rate swap that was larger than the loan outstanding—it was a condition of the loan taken out —and then, when interest rates fell, it revalued the loan to say that his loaned value was beneath the required level. It therefore put him in special measures and started to impose penal interest rates, and then when I got in touch, it said that under data protection it could not talk to me. The whole story was really quite disgraceful and not what one would expect of a major banking corporation. We are all very grateful for what has been done to get some redress for this.I must refer to my declaration of interests. I am regulated by the FCA and have been for many years. I was regulated by its predecessor body, the FSA, and before that, going back to the mid-1990s, by IMRO—the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation. I do not think I have Stockholm syndrome, but I have to tell the House that I cannot support my hon. Friend’s motion. That is not because I do not think there have been errors of regulation—there have. We know only too well that the tripartite system of regulation prior to the crash in 2008 was a failure—nobody knew precisely who was in charge of what aspect of regulation and how it was to be managed, and in the end nobody was doing it at all. The FCA, however, was only introduced in 2013 and a lot of the problems to which hon. Members have referred predate its creation. This House legislated in the previous Session to try to deal with the problem, so this motion has been tabled much too early, because the FCA has not had the chance to prove that it is different from the FSA. The FSA undoubtedly failed, which is why this House abolished it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-01c.710.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g733.0
I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this occasion. Inevitably, some employees remained the same. It would have been extraordinary if all the regulators at the FSA had been fired and sent off to the great regulatory house in the sky. The powers and the responsibilities of the FCA were changed and, indeed, it has carried out an investigation.The FCA has to be judicious and bear in mind that some people took out swaps knowing full well what they were doing. Not every swap that was sold was mis-sold. Interest rate swaps are a very important safeguard for people who are uncertain of the direction of interest rates. Indeed, with interest rates at their current lows, many people may feel that it is prudent to protect themselves by taking out an interest rate swap. It would be wrong to so overtighten regulation or to be so sensitive to what happened in the past to make beneficial financial instruments unavailable because of historical mis-selling. Each case needs to be looked at on its merits.When I first took out a mortgage, I did so at a fixed rate because I knew I could afford to pay that rate but was uncertain about whether I could pay a higher rate. That is a prudent and sensible thing for people to do when engaging with the financial sector. The FCA had a big job of work to do in a quasi-judicial role. It could not just arbitrarily decide that all cases were mis-sellings and therefore they all had to be compensated for.This House, too, needs to be judicious. The motion is really serious. It says that we have no confidence in an arm’s length independent regulator that this House established just three years ago. If we really mean that, we ought to be legislating to create a new one. We should not simply pass a motion; we should say that the body has failed, that it will be abolished as of 1 April and that a new one will be created.This motion represents an intermediate step whereby the House faces one of two risks. One is that it is passed this evening and, like many other Backbench Business motions, absolutely nothing follows from it. This House would then look foolish. It would look as if whatever we say makes no difference and we would have no future power to bring our authority to bear on independent regulators when things may be more serious.The other risk is that the chairman of the FCA feels that he has to resign and take responsibility, because there is no chief executive of the moment, which makes this a very strange time to be holding this debate. If the chairman falls on his sword, what would we achieve? One person would go, but the organisation would remain intact because we have not legislated to replace it.This House should be proud of its constitutional standing and recognise the extraordinary power it has. We can summon people to the Bar of the House if we are sufficiently annoyed with the way they conduct themselves. We can make them answer to Select Committees, and indeed we do. However, if we use that power without due consideration, without being certain and without having every fact at our fingertips that this body, not its predecessors, is the one in which we have no confidence, we undermine the standing of the House of Commons and its ability to do that in future when our case may be better founded. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-01c.710.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g734.1
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I think there is a difficulty with time. Reference has been made to the HBOS report, which took a long time to come forward. Again, it started under the FSA, and the failures were of the FSA, not of the FCA. For a body that has been going for only three years, such a timespan is perhaps not that unreasonable, given that for two of those years it was making a specific investigation.We have made huge progress, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, in achieving redress of grievance. That is enormously important, and it is right to do that. However, a vote of no confidence is the nuclear weapon of Parliament. It is something that brings Governments down. If we pass the motion, it ought to lead to fundamental change at the FCA and resignations, but I fear that we are trying to fire this gun before we have loaded it with gunpowder, and that therefore it will misfire. In that respect, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion, because I think it has had its effect through the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-01c.710.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g735.1
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, and I am more than happy to accept it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1723.0
May I ask the Minister about one further point? When the NHS logo is licensed to small charities, I hope the process will not be too bureaucratic or onerous for them and that the application of the regulations will not be too pettifogging. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1724.0
I support my hon. Friend’s amendment because it is an emergency provision that would be rarely used. From the tone of the debate, there is an impression that the Secretary of State would use it the whole time. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would probably not be used more than once in 10 years? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1694.4
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I think that the Secretary of State is the right person, because that is his responsibility and that is where the buck stops, but the financial liability for the use of the NHS logo in the circumstances I have described is likely to be highly limited. Its use would merely indicate co-operation and collaboration with the NHS, not that the NHS was taking on all the responsibilities and liabilities of the organisation. Legally, it would not create the liability my hon. Friend suggests.The amendment is the result of a specific constituency issue, which I have raised with Ministers on behalf of my constituent. It is an answer to that issue, but it also has broader application, which is why in due course I hope to move it formally. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1687.3
I was about to finish, but yes I will give way. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1688.1
My hon. Friend has been caught up in this idea of fashion, and I am afraid that he speaks of yesterday’s fashion of judicial review. The great work done by the now Lord President of the Council and former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in restricting judicial review means that I simply do not think that that would now be a risk. It would have been a risk in those fashionable new Labour days, when people were judicially reviewing everything and having bogus consultations, which I spoke about earlier. That set the fashion for judicial review, but it is yesterday’s fashion. Those of us who are modern and who are with it—in the current phraseology—know that judicial review is yesterday’s news in such a context. Therefore, I do not believe that this would be a risk. It is a sensible way to deal with a problem that has arisen and to prevent it from arising again. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1688.3
I am not sure that those are the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would use his discretion to allow the logo to be used. I am thinking more of a sign outside a charity shop that supports the NHS, saying “We support the local NHS”, with the name of the local hospital that it is supporting and the local hospital’s logo, which includes the letters “NHS”. I am thinking of that sort of circumstance. It is not about promoting the charity as an offshoot of the NHS; it is about indicating its co-operation with the NHS.Defibrillator boxes give the name of the ambulance service—the ambulance service’s logo includes the letters “NHS”—to indicate that people should ring 999. The ambulance service will then give them the code to open the box and talk them through how to use the equipment. Most of us probably would not know how to use it without some advice. It was entirely rational to use the logo until some idiotic bureaucracy got in the way. Initially, it was very stubborn—the worst type of pettifogging bureaucracy. If the Secretary of State had had the power to cut through such bureaucracy, that could just have been done.The circumstances in which the discretion is used would be limited to where there was genuine co-operation—where the charitable sector and the NHS are working hand in glove—and there was a benefit from using it. It is not about charities posing as the NHS where they are not part of the NHS. If the Secretary of State thought the logo was being misused, he would have the power to rescind the permission. This protected and limited power would solve a particular problem. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1688.5
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1690.2
That was exactly my point. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1690.4
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to out-pedant me, which is a great thing to do, and she may well have won this particular bout of pedantry. By “cautiously” I mean proceeding in a step-by-step way. I am fully supportive of the thrust of what her Bill is trying to do, which is admirable, sensible and wise. I am merely suggesting that in seeking to reach the same destination, we should ensure that there is a fall-back position in case things happen that are less than ideal. That is simply a matter of good sense and good housekeeping. There is no need to do everything in a great rush. As somebody once said, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, and there are no doubt other clichés of a similar kind that I could use.I want to turn to my own amendments, two of which are concerned with preserving the rights of this House. Amendment 8 would remove clause 2(8), which is about how the statutory instrument setting out regulations of this kind should be brought forward. It would ensure that a draft of the instrument is laid before the House and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Laws are always best made when they go through the full democratic process, controls are kept on Ministers, and we do not have arbitrary government.We need to ensure that the assets underlying this are being protected, so in amendment 7 I suggest that there should be a statement by the Comptroller and Auditor General—a comptroller who is properly spelt rather than a controller with the modern spelling—that he is satisfied with the treatment of public assets and funds envisaged in the regulations. This is public money, to some degree—money that is under public auspices. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1683.1
I go back to what I said earlier about where NHS charities sit. By virtue of the money being given to a charity that supports the NHS, that money comes into the public purview and is subject to the way in which the public sector ought to ensure the good management of money. That is why I think it is appropriate—“appropriate”; I am using that awful word—rather, suitable and proper that it should be audited thoroughly to make sure that assets are not handed over that should not be handed over or misappropriated, and to give confidence to this House, and indeed to the other place, that moneys are being sensibly protected. These are very modest amendments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1683.3
What a pleasure it is to see you taking the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been waiting for this happy hour to arrive to help us carry our debates forward.No, I do not think my hon. Friend is right. When people give money to a charity that is linked to the Government, they are even more concerned that it will be spent well, and they therefore want extra protections to assure them of that. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1684.1
As I said, it is a question is how we get to where we are going from where we are starting. As we make the transition, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that the money is handed over in a way that is properly audited so that people can have confidence in the NHS charities and not feel that there is some kind of sleight of hand or money is being siphoned off. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1684.3
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a very distracting interlude, I must confess.The key is the safeguarding of money and ensuring that things are done properly with an audit trail. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1684.7
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. That confusion is almost inevitable. In the case of charities linked to hospitals, most members of the public will expect the money that is spent charitably to be as thoroughly audited as the money that is spent by the state, and it is prudent to formalise that. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1685.1
My hon. Friend’s kindness towards the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I am sure, noted in many other places beyond this one, and I expect that his office would be delighted not to have the extra work. However, he is missing a point that I may already have laboured, so I will labour it only once more. This is a transition phase. This money is very close to public money. It is in a Neverland, one might say, in that it is not quite separate from charitable money and not quite ordinary public expenditure. Therefore, keeping an eye on how it is used in the most formal and protected way, at least in an initial stage, is a prudent way of ensuring that the assets are not used or transferred unsuitably.Amendment 9 is different in nature and arises from a constituency issue. A constituent of mine, with the support of the NHS, established a charity that put defibrillator boxes around the country. These are very admirable boxes that operate in conjunction with the ambulance service and have been shown to save lives by ensuring that defibrillation equipment is available throughout small villages across the country. It has been a most successful charitable endeavour.While my constituent was working with the ambulance trusts, they wrote to him to say that it was perfectly all right—indeed, they wanted him to do this—to put the ambulance service logo on the boxes, so that people would know that they were formally connected to the NHS. He then received a letter out of the blue from some little-known bureaucracy that protects the NHS logo. I understand the reasons for that: we do not necessarily want random private companies to call themselves the NHS or for unrelated businesses to use the logo. Some protection is needed, but the letter struck me as a heavy-handed way of going about things. It was an excessive response to something that was linked to the NHS and that was, at its core, a health issue operating with and through the support of the NHS.The amendment would merely make it straightforward for the Secretary of State to overrule the whole procedure. When there is an issue of this kind, the Secretary of State would have the power to say, “Well, there may be this bureaucracy that safeguards the NHS logo, but I am overruling it and giving permission for the logo to be used, because I think it is a sensible thing to do.”The reason I like the amendment is that, in a strange way, it relates to what this place is about. It is about seeking redress of grievance for our constituents when they are badly treated by bureaucracy. The best way of doing that is not through independent, unaccountable and unelected bodies that have been separated off from Government, but by a Minister being held accountable at the Dispatch Box. That is how we get things put right for our constituents.This very small amendment would simply allow the Secretary of State to short-circuit the system when it is behaving badly. It provides that the permission given by the Secretary of State can be cancelled with six months’ notice, which is a reasonable amount of time for people to change any boxes, stationery or anything else they may have with the NHS logo on it, if they are found to have been abusing the permission or for some other reason. The principle that power should be with democratically elected people, and that it should be there to override off-shoots of bureaucracy that nobody previously knew about or cared for, is a very good and sound one. As I understand it, the issue that my constituent has had has been mainly sorted out, but the amendment would be a better and clearer way of dealing with such things.Of the amendments that I have tabled, amendment 9 is of the greatest importance to me. As is the case with so much of what I have been saying, it is about the fundamental principle of what we are trying to do when we legislate. We are trying to ensure democratic accountability and the rights of our constituents, and not to be constantly handing things over to ever-growing bureaucracies. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1685.3
My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. He has misunderstood, misconstrued and possibly even misread the amendment, which uses the word “may”. I am not compelling the Secretary of State to go out and chuck the logo on to every box he sees all over the country or to spray the NHS logo on every shopping centre he passes. I do not see him as a vandal going around with a spray can and a little cut-out stencil, spraying “NHS” on everything or engraving it on our foreheads when we come into the Chamber. That is not what the amendment proposes—it uses the word “may”. It says that when those charities that work immeasurably closely—hand in glove, on some occasions—with the national health service find it useful to use the logo and the Secretary of State thinks it is a good idea, he may give them the authority to do so. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1686.1
Of course not. “May” is a very precise word: it is an allowing factor and it gives permission to somebody to do something, and they are allowed to use their discretion to do it. The amendment uses “may” so that people may go directly to the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable, and get the decision made, rather than have to go off to a bureaucracy that is not accountable or that is accountable only indirectly. “May” is about restoring democratic and, ultimately, parliamentary control over something that belongs to the nation as a whole.The NHS logo does not belong to an obscure body. It may do in some legal sense, but the NHS is the peoples’, for want of a better turn of phrase. It is not something truly vested in an obscure bureaucracy. Therefore, to allow it to be used by charities that are co-operating with the NHS is a sensible ability to have within the Bill. The amendment does not compel the Secretary of State to do that, but if another Member of Parliament finds themselves in my position, where a charity in their constituency has been treated badly, they may ask the Secretary of State whether he will give his permission. They could write to and lobby him, or send a petition to his house. The amendment opens up all sorts of ways to seek redress of grievance, but it also achieves the main object of the Bill, which is that there should be a great flourishing of charities that will help the NHS to do even more than it already does, and some of them may need this flexibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) looks as if he wishes to intervene. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1687.1
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That is the problem with this endless consultation; nothing gets done. Last May, people voted and gave us a mandate to do things, not to ask them what we should do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1679.1
I raised the question of what the word “appropriate” meant earlier and I was indeed intending to come back to it. Appropriate, inappropriate, unacceptable and disappointing are those new Labour words that get dropped into conversations and they mean remarkably little or what, in a Humpty Dumptyish way, what the person hearing them wishes to think that they mean. What is an appropriate consultation? There is no qualification or clarification in the amendment, so what is it intended to achieve? Does “appropriate” mean that signs should be put on noticeboards, as with planning issues? Does it mean that letters should be written to local residents? Does it mean that something should be squirrelled away on the internet? Does it mean that a paper should be laid before this House, or put in the Library, where, no doubt, many people would follow its contents closely? Or does “appropriate” mean that the Secretary of State has a word in his office with the permanent secretary, saying, “Do you think this would be a good idea, Sir Humphrey?”, then Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, you would be very brave, Minister,” and then the idea is dropped on the basis of that consultation? Does it mean the Secretary of State can have a word at home with his family—with his kitchen cabinet—telling them that he is minded to appoint or not appoint a few trustees? I could tell all sorts of anecdotes about how that used to happen in the good old days, but I think it might be wandering slightly from the point. “Appropriate” is a very imprecise word and legislation ought to be precise. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1679.3
I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to finish on this set of amendments by saying that this House should be jealous of its role as the major focus of consultation in the nation. We were elected to represent our constituents and therefore to express views on these issues. That is why we are here, and what is done with consultation so often is a pretence. It is not about the Government wanting the wisdom of the millions before making up their mind but about the Government wanting the comfort of having been through a rigmarole to get what they wanted in the first place. We should not give up our authority lightly or increase the power of the Executive.I know want to turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, which are absolutely glorious in their conception. They basically reverse what the Bill is trying to do in the first place, which is a great thing for him to have slipped past our ever-attentive Clerks. That does not often happen on Report. Perhaps the amendments—and this is why our Clerks in their wisdom let them go through—would ensure that there is a safeguard. Safeguards may be sensible. There have been occasions where charities have got into trouble when public money is being spent. Although it is broadly considered a good idea to remove the power from the Secretary of State to appoint trustees so that a decision is made more locally and so that the construction of the charities may be more suitable for the local organisations—that has a great deal of support —we know that something will go wrong at some point.That is not a particularly Cassandra-like view to take; it is just the experience that we have. We know that there will be a small charitable hospital that puts all its money into an Icelandic bank, for example, and suddenly loses it. The trustees get criticised and attacked, or they write 3,000 letters a year to elderly ladies asking them for money and are seen to have behaved badly. Then somebody will come forward, probably a Member of this House, who will ask the Secretary of State at Question Time, “Why is it that you, Secretary of State, are not doing anything to stop this problem arising? Why have you not kept those residual powers? Why did you not ensure that when the Bill went through Parliament, there was a safeguard, something to protect—” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1680.0
My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. NHS charities are different because of the structure of the national health service and the conception of the national health service in people’s minds. There is much less of an immediate governmental interest, or concern with, ordinary private charities that were founded sometimes centuries ago with grants from generous benefactors that through the mists of time have evolved and developed. NHS charities work side by side with the state in all that they do, so they are a marginal extension of the state rather than something completely different from it. If we draw a Venn diagram of the third sector, we have a part that is very private and another part that is very much state. NHS charities are very much in the state part of the Venn diagram. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1680.2
My hon. Friend ignores the starting point, which is that the Secretary of State makes the appointments, whereas that has never been the case for other charities. They have evolved differently, whereas NHS charities are evolving out of the NHS, more towards the private sector. To put in place a safeguard which one hopes would not be used seems to me quite a prudent thing to do. It says, “This is our hope, this is our intention. We expect it to work and we think it will work in the vast majority of cases and make NHS charities more like other private sector charities.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1681.1
Of course I give way to the promoter of the Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1681.3
I suppose the answer is “Up to a point, Lord Copper.” The Charity Commission has marvellous and admirable elements. It has a brilliant chairman who has been a great force for good in that organisation, sorting out some of the problems that it had before his appointment. I think particularly of the dreadful treatment meted out to the Plymouth Brethren before he was there. It is none the less an unelected, unaccountable quango. I take the rather extraordinary view that we should trust our democratically elected politicians more than we should trust the unelected. That is why I am always banging on about this House maintaining its own powers, and why we should hold Ministers to account. We should be very cautious about thinking that an independent, unaccountable body is a better supervisor than the democratic will of the nation expressed through this House.When responsibility is shifted, it is prudent to do that cautiously, in stages, and to keep a safeguard in place. When the first case goes wrong, which it will—within10 years something will have happened; there will be an NHS charity where the accountant has snaffled off all the money and gone to Barbados or wherever it is fashionable to go at this time of year, or perhaps gone off to South Africa to watch the test match—at that point people will say, “Why didn’t the Government do something about that? Why have they not got a plan? Why didn’t they make sure that they could keep it under control?”. Having a protection, possibly even a time-limited one— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1681.5
No, I cannot follow the logic of that argument. I do not think charities will be more likely or less likely to have ill governance because the Secretary of State is in or out. The protection would be there in case there is ill governance, which there invariably is to a small degree. In charities, businesses and Governments there is invariably ill practice somewhere along the line, and I do not think the motive for ill practice is affected by the knowledge that the Secretary of State may be keeping an eye on them or a feeling that he is not doing so. We need to ensure that if the problem arises, there is a safeguard—a mechanism to put things right. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1682.1
I quibble about the word “rescue”. It is not so much rescue as fire. If the trustees do things badly, the Secretary of State may fire them and put other people in their place. That would not encourage slackness, idleness or malpractice. It would encourage probity, forthrightness and good management. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument supports what I am saying, rather than what he thought he was promoting.My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has proposed extremely sensible, prudent measures that will keep a broad eye on what is going on. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1682.3
I reiterate—I am sorry, Mr Speaker, to reiterate. I may be becoming repetitive, but I hope not yet tediously repetitive; that may come at a later stage. We need to look at the starting point. These charities are coming out of the control of the Secretary of State. To move them completely away from his control in one fell swoop may be relatively imprudent, whereas to do it more cautiously and keep a safeguard is perfectly sensible. By contrast, in the case of charities that have never been under the Secretary of State and have never had their trustees appointed by the Government, it is perfectly sensible to leave them with their existing regulatory system. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1682.5
I remind my hon. Friend that he said he would explain what the word “appropriate” meant in this context, which is an important point for the House to be clear upon. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1675.6
I had not intended to follow on so quickly, Mr Speaker, as I thought there would be a great rush to the barricades of people wanting to speak. I am moved to speak in opposition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is proposing before dealing with my own amendments. I am very concerned about what he is suggesting, given its radicalism and its move away from proper parliamentary scrutiny and from the sovereignty this House enjoys. He asks us to throw all that away for this vague “appropriate” consultation. One of his amendments would remove the following provision in the Bill:“A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) which amend or repeal primary legislation…may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House”.You will know, Mr Speaker, that one of the most dangerous powers this House can give to Ministers—one we have always been cautious about giving them—is the power to amend primary legislation without going through the normal procedures for repealing primary legislation. Therefore, slipping in an amendment to a Bill that would take away that safeguard from this House and the other place, and allow things to be nodded through, is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It takes away the authority of this House and is therefore fundamentally dangerous, and so I oppose it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1677.0
If primary legislation is being changed the default position should be that it can be changed only by primary legislation. That should not be subject to a de minimis level because primary legislation is by its nature important. If something is not important, why is it in primary legislation? If it is in primary legislation it can be assumed that it is a matter of such nature, state and standing that it has required this House, the other place and Her Majesty to approve it. If we are dealing in trivialities, that is a broader constitutional question that should be considered and we should stop doing that. If something is in primary legislation, it ought, as a starting point, only be changed by primary legislation.To allow Ministers what have been known as Henry VIII clauses to wipe out primary legislation is something that constitutionalists have been concerned about for many years. That is why I am very uncomfortable with this provision being slipped in as an amendment and brushed over when what it does is of fundamental importance and is quite rarely used. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made the point that the affirmative route for statutory instruments is rarer than the negative one, and that is quite correct, but the negative one is mainly used for routine regulations that do not engage in any change to primary legislation. When primary legislation is changed, that ought to be brought to the House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1677.2
That is absolutely right, but I think that slipped in is a perfectly fair phrase on Fridays, because the debates then tend to be quiet and relatively poorly attended. However, it is nice to see our Benches so full and well trooped, if I might say so, by people who are in the Chamber to support the Bill. I am rather surprised that our friends from Scotland are all absent, but I suppose that the Bill does not immediately affect them, at least not in the first half.I want to move on to the comparison between the amendment getting rid of the affirmative route for statutory instruments and the one on public consultation. It seems to me to be an extraordinary approach to take to say that when a regulation is changed by the Secretary of State, it is better that it should be consulted on with a group of self-selecting individuals who take the time to get in touch, taking away the ability of this House to act as that safeguard and check. Surely we are here, with a democratic mandate, as the main people to be consulted on behalf of our electorate, to whom we have to report every so often. Issues should not be put out to local consultation, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, is often more of a fig leaf and an attempt to consult and either achieve a result that is already intended. If not, the consultation is ignored. Consultation has become immensely fashionable and we should always be cautious of fashion. Fashion ebbs and it flows, it comes and it goes, but there is a permanence to this House and in our way of doing things. We are the democratic sounding board for our constituents, so that there are not endless self-selecting consultations with people who are not necessarily particularly interested in the issue. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1678.1
Mr Speaker, as always, you are correct. I think that I would take being called fashionable as a grave insult, although I know that your ties are regularly a model of fashion. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1678.3
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid that I think that most public consultation is bogus. It is about going through the motions and pretending we are interested in views when the Government, or councils or whatever else, want to get on and do whatever they wish to do anyway.It simply allows opportunities for judicial review to gum up the process. We should be incredibly cautious about chucking public consultation into Bills, because that does not actually achieve anything. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1678.5
Will my hon. Friend explain what he means by “appropriate”? Does it mean the Secretary of State should ask a few mates in the pub what they think of the proposals, or a more formalised system through petition of this House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1671.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1672.3
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1669.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1669.1
It is not a point of order, but I beg to move, That the House sit in private. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-22b.1669.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1669.3
I rise to oppose the Bill, though I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) on following in the footsteps of Flanders and Swann. Some years ago they proposed that England should have its own national anthem and they came up with “The English, the English, the English are best”. I will not go through all the lines because, although I am not a great advocate of political correctness, some elements of them may, in this modern age, cause some discombobulation to other hon. Members, particularly my friends in the Scottish National party, but there is an excellent line, “And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!”—something to be strongly advised against as an unpleasant and somewhat malodorous habit.I oppose the proposal for deep and serious reasons. What greater pleasure can there be for a true-born English man or true-born English woman than to listen to our own national anthem—a national anthem for our whole country, for our whole United Kingdom, of which England is but a part, but an important part—and to listen to those words that link us to our Sovereign, who is part of that chain that takes us back to our immemorial history; to sing or, if one cannot sing, to listen to the tune that invokes our loyalty to our nation? That tune has been popular since 1745, when it is thought to have started in a response to the Jacobite rebellion. I am usually in favour of Jacobites for obvious reasons, but on that occasion they were traitors and not to be encouraged.The words that developed then and have remained constant change only when we have a woman on the throne, rather than a man. It is a tune that encapsulates the patriotism that we wish to express when supporting a team. The hon. Member for Chesterfield said that now English crowds take St George’s flag rather than the Union Jack. To me that is a matter of pity, of shame, that we have given up viewing ourselves as one United Kingdom, whether we are supporting England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. These expressions of individual nationalism are a disuniting factor in our country, a country that we ought to want to make more united.As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, English crowds have taken to singing “Jerusalem” at various sporting occasions. It is sung at the beginning of test matches in some grounds, though I am glad to say that this does not seem to happen at Lord’s, which is an indication of the proper ordering of things. I am not sure that singing a jolly tune at the beginning of a match is particularly dignified and represents the nation as the nation ought to want to be represented. The crowds have taken to “Jerusalem”, which has a good tone to it. It is a happy song for people to sing, and we should all be in favour of happiness, but does it really make that patriotic pride swell up in us in the way that we would like?When we think of the words of “Jerusalem”, a highly speculative question is posed. In the words:“And did those feet in ancient time”a question is being asked, but I come from Somerset and I know the answer. It is well known that Christ was taken by Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury, so why in “Jerusalem” could anyone want to sing “did”, when we know that the truth is that Christ not only went to Glastonbury but, as in that old Somerset saying to assert the truth of anything, “As Christ was in Priddy”, Christ also went to Priddy, and as a young man Joseph of Arimathea probably did too. Could we possibly want to have an anthem that questioned this undeniable truth of God’s own county, the county particularly selected for visitation by our Lord when he was on earth?This proposed Bill seeks to regularise something that in our brilliant British way we have never previously needed to regularise. Our national anthem has come about over time without needing pettifogging regulation, bureaucracy or any of those things that we dislike, so that is a reason for opposing it. The proposal reduces the sense of devotion to our Sovereign that we ought to have, that it is proper to have and that we promise we will have when we swear in or affirm as Members of Parliament. That would be a sad thing to lose. It lacks the courage of Flanders and Swann to go the whole hog and be properly, eccentrically patriotic. It is a sort of second-tier level of national anthem, though when it was proposed that the anthem might be a song normally sung at the Labour party conference, I must confess I was relieved that the one chosen was not “The Red Flag”. Given the current trend in the leadership of the Labour party, though, it would not surprise me if in a year’s time we have a private Member’s Bill to make singing “The Red Flag” compulsory as well. [Interruption.] I am glad to get some support from Labour Members on the Front Bench below the aisle, who probably think that is a heartily good idea.This would mean moving away to the wrong song—a song that offends Somerset sensibilities. It would be a bad thing to do. We should affirm our loyalty to our sovereign lady in the words of the British national anthem; and as for the hon. Member for Chesterfield, we should confound his politics and frustrate his knavish tricks.Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.Ordered,That Toby Perkins, Tristram Hunt, Greg Mulholland, Daniel Kawczynski, Ruth Smeeth, Sarah Champion, Mr Jamie Reed, Andrew Rosindell, Angela Smith, Bob Stewart, Michael Fabricant and Sir Gerald Howarth present the Bill.Toby Perkins accordingly presented the Bill.Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 Marchand to be printed (Bill 118). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-13c.863.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g865.0
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-12b.791.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g800.0
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think he has actually got it fundamentally wrong. Two tiers of Members of Parliament have not been created by the mechanism that has been used. By using Standing Orders, which can be changed by all Members of Parliament, and by this being a Grand Committee—we see where the Mace is—and not the House sitting in full session, the rights of every individual Member remain intact. That is crucially important. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-12b.791.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g800.2
The petition reads as follows:The petition of residents of the UK,Declares that Bathampton Meadows are an area of cultural and historical importance; further that the proposed park and ride scheme on Bathampton Meadows will negatively affect the local landscape; further that the plans will negatively impact local tourism; and further than an online petition on this matter was signed by over 6,000 petitioners.The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Bath and North East Somerset Council to withdraw plans to build a park and ride scheme on Bathampton Meadows.And the petitioners remain, etc.[P001667] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-06b.403.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g403.1
In a deft but somewhat selective speech, is the hon. Gentleman not missing the point that universal credit, with a single rate of taper, will make it invariably clear to people that if they work more, they will earn more? Under the current system, taper rates go up to 90%. It is incredibly confusing and many people do not risk taking on extra work because they will have to re-apply for benefits and may be worse off. Universal credit has a beautiful simplicity and will encourage people to work. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-06b.290.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g297.0
The Prime Minister tells us that other EU Heads of Government say that the EU needs Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does that not show the strength of our negotiating position? They need our money and our economic strength. Therefore, has not the time come for him to screw his courage to the sticking point and say to Chancellor Merkel—that great beadle of Berlin—when he next sees her, “Please, we want some more”? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-05d.26.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g45.4
I want to raise the modest question of why this Bill has not been introduced under Standing Order No. 50, as it seems to me that the primary purpose is a charge. For a Bill of this kind, Standing Order No. 50 is the usual process. I know it has the Government’s support, but I am puzzled that that approach has not been taken. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-16c.1650.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1650.2
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this is an example of the cap working. The Government have had to explain why they have had to do this, and explain the context of the changes announced in the autumn statement. That is absolutely right and proper, and he should support the Government. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-16c.1633.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1641.0
I am actually going to support the Government today, too. There seem to be amazing levels of support, which is always quite dangerous, but it is refreshing that the Scottish National party is here in force to ensure that these matters are properly debated and scrutiny is carried out effectively.The reason I support the Government is partly because the European Union has made an absolute hash of it. I phrase myself slightly more bluntly than the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) who, in glorious understatement, said that the scheme of the European Union was not working as anticipated. Well, I thought that was on a par with the late Emperor of Japan, who at the end of the war said:“The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.”When we think that, according to the Daily Express, 184 people out of 160,000 have been relocated, it is a failure even by the terms of the European Union. It introduced a plan that was hotly opposed by elected Governments. It imposed it by qualified majority voting. We, fortunately, had an opt-out, which we used. But what underlies this policy is, to my mind, also so wrong.Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who made a very powerful speech about the duty we have to mankind in general. I very much accept that. The duty to refugees is fundamental. It is tremendously important and is something the United Kingdom has done for centuries. The question then is how to do it well, how to do it effectively, and how to preserve life so that we actually save people. It seems to me that what the European Union has done has made the situation worse for the refugees themselves. Of over 900,000 who have come by boat to the shores of the European Union in 2015, 3,671 have either died or gone missing. The terrible events in the Mediterranean in 2014 led the Holy Father to say:“We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast graveyard.”The reason this happened is the pious but failed hopes of the European Union’s refugee policy: the idea that as soon as people get into the boundaries of the European Union they will get citizenship, but if they cannot get here there is nothing that will be done for them. That seems to me to encourage people to take these crazy risks that have led to the tragedies. The EU’s policy is itself creating dangers for refugees.The refugees who come are not the halt and the lame, but the fittest and the most able to take the risks involved in trying to cross the sea to come to the European Union. We have seen that 70% of the refugees who have come to the European Union are in fact men, primarily young men. A system has been set up that creates incentives and leads people to take foolish risks to come here in the first place. The people who are most at risk—the children, the elderly and the frail—are left behind, because if they apply from their risky country, the forces of the EU will not let them in.Her Majesty’s Government have got this right, but the numbers are hopeless. The 20,000 over five years is absolutely a step in the right direction, but of course we should do more. We should think of how many we take from the European Union under the free movement of people. In the year to March 2015, we took 183,000 economic migrants from the European Union; 183,000 people who were safe in their own country and not at risk of persecution. They were not in fear of their lives. They wanted to come here for the most noble and honourable reason—to improve the condition of themselves and their families. They moved halfway across a continent to do it and that is something I admire hugely. That is a very Conservative thing to do—to wish to better oneself and to take that risk. That is what entrepreneurs do. However, they are economic migrants, not refugees. And because we take so many people from the European Union under the guise of the free movement of people, when it comes to taking those who are genuinely at risk of their life we take 4,000 a year. We take 4,000 a year from the camps in Syria who may die if they do not escape, and we take 183,000 because we believe in the principle of European citizenship and that anyone who wants to come here from the EU should be free to waltz in, wherever they have waltzed from.This is not only undesirable in domestic political terms: it is undesirable in moral terms. We are not helping those who are most in need; we are helping those who do not in fact need our help and support. We are helping those who are safe, rather than being generous to those who are at risk. This seems to me a fundamental failing of the European Union, because—instead of giving aid to refugees—it encourages people to take unwarranted risks, and gives benefits to those who are already safe.Why do I stick to this number of 183,000 and what is the context? The context is that there is a limit to the numbers any country will take in any one year, not because free movement is a bad thing in itself but because the societies to which people move cannot cope with the influx above a certain level. There is not the infrastructure, there are not the schools or hospitals, and the society lacks the capacity to absorb large numbers at one point. Their arrival needs to be staggered over a much longer period. If we have so many coming from safe countries, inevitably we have to be mean with the numbers we can control because they do not benefit from the European treaties and free movement with the EU.The EU’s whole approach is wrong, and we, in our renegotiation, are unutterably feeble; all we are doing is muddling about with a few benefits, which is not why people come anyway. As I said earlier, they come for that noble, inspirational reason: they want to improve their lives and those of their families. They do not come because they are benefits cheats, yet we grub around on that, rather than thinking about the real problem—the scale of immigration from the EU. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) pointed out, free-for-all immigration does not work for our democracy. Our people—our voters, our electors—do not want it, they reject it, and yet the Government do not even ask to get this back under domestic control. Instead, they do not opt in to one part of things with many parts, but it will not have any great effect.I will support the Government tonight, but what was the best reason we heard for why the 800,000 Mrs Merkel is welcoming in will not come here? Apparently, our ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Germany has reported to Ministers that we do not need to worry about them coming here because the Germans are slow at processing citizenship applications. Well, isn’t that lucky? They are slow. I always thought German bureaucracy was efficient, but clearly not; when it comes to processing citizenship applications, they might take 10 years. So we will not get 800,000 today or tomorrow. But we will get them the election after next. That, I am afraid, is where the Government are failing and letting down the British people. They have opted out of one thing, but they have left the big, the real, the major problem at the centre— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1347.3
Of course I will give way. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1349.1
The amount of immigration to this country from the EU shows that we are a great magnet. Everyone seems to want to come to the UK, including to the glories of Scotland. It is extraordinary the draw we are. In a way, I am proud of this. I love the fact that people all around the world think the best place to live is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It should give us a glow of pride about the success of our nation under this glorious Conservative Government, who are bringing us peace and prosperity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1349.3
No, I do not accept that. The reason the British go and live abroad and are welcomed abroad is that most of the British who go abroad are quite well off and mainly retired, and therefore they take a lot of income into poorer European countries that happen to have a little more sunshine. I quite understand. It is the Florida effect. People want to go to the southern European countries, but they take wealth with them, which would be welcomed even if we were not members of the EU, because poor countries always want to attract rich migrants. Rich countries cannot take an unlimited number of poor migrants, which is why we should focus on the most needy —the real refugees, the ones in Syria and the camps—and cut back on the 183,000 economic migrants coming from the EU. When the Government do that, they will deserve much more support than the support they will get today. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1350.0
Would my hon. Friend be more sympathetic to Her Majesty’s Government, as I might be, if it were not true that it was nearly three years ago, in January 2013, that the European Scrutiny Committee requested a debate on the Floor of the House on the free movement of people? Their failure to schedule debates is long standing. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1337.1
Is not the problem on secondary movement the fact that once migrants have become citizens of an EU member state, the free movement of people means that they are entitled to go anywhere? Even under our own laws, asylum seekers go to the head of the queue in getting nationality. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1330.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1331.4
It is becoming something of an annual event that the Home Office should bring forward a further passing of powers to the European Union. Just over a year ago, we had the arrest warrant and all that went with it, and now we have Prüm, or Proom depending on one’s preferred pronunciation.I must confess that this is a grave disappointment, because one had begun to read briefings in the press that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was going to become the Boadicea of the Leave campaign, and on her winged chariot she was going to be putting the case for why we should have less Europe rather than more. Instead, we get this order brought before us today on the grounds of necessity. She says that it is the only way in which we can co-operate with our friends in Europe—countries that wish to assist us and that we wish to assist.The arguments for the order are, superficially, very attractive. There is no one in this House who wants to aid terrorists or stop them being arrested. There is no one who wants rapists to go free, or who wants petrol smuggled between Northern and southern Ireland. We want the law to be obeyed and the wrongdoers to be arrested. We want them to be caught and put in prison. That is all true, and we want efficient systems to be put in place that ensure that that happens. There is absolute unanimity in this House, and probably—except among the criminal fraternity—in the country at large. Then we hear why it can be done only this one way, which is more Europe, with the Commission and the European Court of Justice.Interpol, according to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others who have spoken, sounds as though it is run by Inspector Clouseau and uses cleft sticks to carry messages between countries. It is so incompetent and slow that it is hard to understand why it exists at all. If it is quite so incompetent at gathering information and quite so lazy and idle at passing it around the world, why are we contributing to its upkeep? Is there not a case for fundamental reform of Interpol? Should we not do something about it to ensure that, internationally and not just in the narrow European sphere, there is a means, a method and an ability to transmit information relating to these dangerous criminals? But oh, no, we will not bother with that. That might be hard work. It might mean that something has to be done, that it will upset the nice, expanding, imperial European Union that has of course to have more powers gathered to itself. No, the only thing that can be done is to use the full mechanism of the European Union; there is no other way.We assume that if we offered bilateral intergovernmental agreements, they would be refused. The Home Office states that they would be refused; that that would be too difficult because there is another mechanism within the European Union. But that makes the assumption that our friends, our partners, our allies in Europe are so wedded to the idea of the European Union that they will not do something that they themselves wish to do because we will not agree to their specific structures for doing it. Therefore, we must accept the structures rather than negotiating with them over what those structures may be.This strikes me as perverse. We know that our friends in France are keen to have this exchange of information. Is the Home Secretary really saying that the French would not agree to an intergovernmental bilateral agreement that we would give them information and they would give us information because it did not meet the highfalutin European ideal? Is that really what Her Majesty’s Government are saying? Is that the case with Germany, Italy and Spain? Are they all saying that they attach so much importance to the European Union that, even though they wish to share information with us, even though they think it is important, even though they think that it would cut crime, they are not willing to do so? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-08a.914.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g949.0
My hon. Friend is right. The Danish question is one of the greatest importance. Denmark had a referendum, having trusted their people, which I believe we may be doing at some point. But of course we are not trusting them on this measure, because it is instrumental to catching terrorists, and the people cannot be trusted to decide whether they want to do that or not. No, this must be done by the Government after a three-hour debate—though lucky us to get even a three-hour debate. Last year we did not get a debate on the European arrest warrant. We had it on something else. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-08a.914.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g950.1
The hon. Gentleman is only partly right—a bit of a curate’s egg, if I may say so, but it is regrettably rotten in parts. If the agreement is done in this way, it comes under the competence of the European Court of Justice and infraction proceedings can be brought by the European Commission. Why is that important? I accept that protections are built into Prüm, and that there are limits on the application of what the ECJ can do, but it needs to be seen as part of a whole package. We are agreeing today that the investigatory function in relation to data held by Governments should be centralised at a European level. We agreed a year ago that the arrest function should be centralised with a European competence. So we have investigation, we have arrest, and we have a proposal from the European Commission for a European public prosecutor—so far, resisted, but this measure was resisted a year ago, and the European arrest warrant was not Conservative party policy until a year ago.I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees where I am going. This is part of a package of creating a European criminal justice system. It comes one by one and bit by bit. On every occasion, the measure is said to be essential and we are told that there is no opportunity of doing it differently, but if there is no opportunity of doing it differently, why is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister racing around European capitals trying to organise a renegotiation? If there is never any other possibility, is that not banging our head against a brick wall? Surely we should be saying—the Government intimated this a year ago, but there has been no delivery at all—that we will make the European arrest warrant and all that goes with it part of the renegotiation. We would go back to the status quo ante—where we were prior to the Lisbon treaty: that we do these things on an intergovernmental basis.My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone—I am sorry, I mean hon. Friend; he ought to be right honourable; it is extraordinary that Her Majesty has not yet asked him to join the Privy Council—pointed me in the direction of Denmark. Denmark has said no. Denmark will want to make arrangements with fellow European Union states to exchange data with their friends and allies, and we could make arrangements with our friends and allies to exchange data and do all the sensible things of which everyone in this House is in favour. It is the right thing for us to do, but it is better than that. If we did it on an intergovernmental basis we might decide that there are some EU member states whose criminal justice systems are not up to it. That is an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) referred to his constituent and the disgraceful way in which he was treated in a country where we do not have the same confidence in the criminal justice processes that we have in, for example, Germany and France, or, for that matter, the United States and Canada. Such an arrangement would give us greater flexibility, and there are a number of ways in which it could be done. We could have intergovernmental agreements with the European Union as a body. The EU has legal personality, so it is possible to do it on that basis, but maintain control and keep the rights that we enjoy, and stop the rush—that is perhaps an exaggeration, as the last debate was a year ago, but it is a rush in European terms—to establish a single criminal justice system.It is worrying that a Government who portray themselves in election campaigns, propaganda and statements as Eurosceptic, when it comes to the details of what they are doing, turn out to think that the answer is more Europe. They then say that this has to be done because we are in danger if we do not do it. The only reason we are in danger is that we assume that the EU and its member states are not rational in their dealings with us, so we must always give in to them. One of the greatest Prime Ministers that this country ever saw, William Pitt, said:“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”This argument is dependent on the necessity. I do not wish this Government to be tyrannical, nor do I wish to be a slave. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-08a.914.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g950.3
I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, which is that it is sensible to co-operate, but does this co-operation need the institutions of the European Union? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-08a.914.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g926.4
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-08a.914.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g916.2
Will the Minister clarify what he has said about nobody being forced to go down this route? Does that mean that, under amendment 7, an objecting constituent council would not be part of the mayoralty? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g786.0
So if a council is part of a combined authority and it objects to there being a mayor, but the majority of members of the combined authority vote for a mayor, the council will leave the combined authority and will not be any part of any combined authority or of the mayoralty. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g786.2
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Having one party in office forever can create its own difficulties, but I think that that is less likely to happen with a mayor than with a local council with individual councillors. A mayor stands both as a party figure and as an independent figure. That is undoubtedly the case with the mayoralty for London, and the Conservative and Labour figures who have fought successfully have done so by being semi-detached from their parties and building up their personal following.That would happen in other places, but it clarifies the issue and is more straightforward if we have first past the post and whoever is most popular wins.To go back to the developing theory of referendums, I also think that first past the post is what the British people voted for. We had a great referendum under the coalition Government of whom the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was a very distinguished part, and in that referendum the electorate blew a very large raspberry at electoral reform. They said that they did not want the alternative vote system but wanted to stick to first past the post.For a Government who have an opportunity to correct what was previously put in place and to go for what the electorate not only wants but has voted for is fundamentally democratic and proper, and ties in with my original theory of referendums. It is the right of the people to decide who governs them as well as the structures of government and how they relate to them. The individual Members, mayors and councillors are then entitled to operate those levers between elections. How people vote, for whom they vote and the regions for which they vote ought to be determined by referendums. We have had one in support of first past the post, and we have had one supporting a mayor for London and a mayor for Bristol. It is a mistake to ignore the very first of those votes and an error not to give people the right to vote on their own structures in future.Several hon. Members rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g766.5
I wish to support some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and to try to give more information to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to explain why I am in favour of first past the post.Briefly, let me talk about referendums and why I have attached my name to amendment 2. It seems that there is a slowly developing theory of referendums in this country that fits in with a parliamentary democracy. It is that those of us who sit in this House, who admire this House and who approve of how our constitution works, have a great affection for the understanding that we are representatives and not delegates, and that we are here to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people for a five-year period before returning it to them in toto at the end of that period. That is the well-established constitutional position. Against that, and in sympathy with that, there is a developing view of where referendums are useful, and moving from useful to becoming essential; and that is to do with the structures of government. The reason for that is that there is a permanency in the structures of government that outweighs the normal level of legislation with which we deal.It is quite right that Scotland had referendums on its decisions on independence and on establishing a Parliament in the first place, because those are effectively permanent decisions, irreversible and unchangeable without the consent of the Scottish people. Likewise in Wales, the Welsh have had referendums on their Assembly, as has Northern Ireland, too. With regard to local councils and changes, if the structures are to work they need to go with the grain of popular consent. Authority, when it is used, needs to have a legitimacy that is based in democratic consent. When that consent was not given in the Local Government Act 1972, there was a great deal of hostility to what was done because it did not meet the requirements of local people. Against that evolving doctrine of referendums there is, inevitably, the Government’s view of referendums, which I characterise, perhaps unfairly, as being, “We will have referendums when we think we will win them, but if we think we won’t win them, it is a bit too dangerous, so we won’t take the risk.” It is a pity that the Government have not taken the risk with these new structures. Let us take the Mayor of London as an example. The Mayor of London has enormous popular consent, even when it was Ken Livingstone, let alone now that it is the great man, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g763.0
That is exactly the point I am making. That is why there has been affection for the Mayors, even from people who do not share their political sympathies. It is felt that they have a legitimacy to do what they have done. I voted against having a mayor for London, because I thought that another tier of government was quite unnecessary; we already have far too many. However, because London had a referendum and the referendum was won, there is a legitimacy. The great city that I neighbour, the city of Bristol, elected a mayor, having decided to do so through a referendum. Therefore, the people of Bristol have invested in that office and given legitimacy to it. I cannot think of anything worse than having an elected mayor covering Somerset, and I would oppose it tooth and nail. The watchwords will be, “Somerset will fight, and Somerset will be right.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g763.2
If Madam Deputy Speaker will indulge me, I compare that with the Council of Ministers in the context of the European Union. It has democratic legitimacy derived from its constituent parts, whereas a mayor imposed, without a referendum, lacks that fundamental legitimacy. It is more like the President of the European Commission. To have a system that has an imposed mayor is to move away from legitimacy. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g764.1
I do not accept that. I am not a big-is-good advocate. I think that small can well be beautiful. The individual leaders of councils are the doughty defenders of the interests of the population that has chosen them, and they are in their way like Members of Parliament in that they represent a specific area and a specific interest, and they can combine with others to see how decisions can be made. I see no lack of democracy in a group of people coming together, each one of whom has an individual mandate. Indeed that can be a better democratic mandate than having a highfalutin mayor. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g764.3
I agree with my hon. Friend. Imposing structures does not give them legitimacy. What gives them legitimacy is that they should be built from the ground upwards. Fundamentally, that is a Conservative view of how Governments are constructed. I am talking about the little battalions coming together to do big things jointly, rather than a hierarchical system that says, “We know what’s best for you.” That is the approach of those on the Opposition Benches. The socialist approach, as it is now, once again, a Socialist party, is about telling people what to do and giving them the figures who do it. The Conservative evolutionary approach is to allow people to come together, each one of whom individually has legitimacy to do things. I absolutely accept his point that combined authorities have worked by consent and that they do not necessarily need super-mayors or metro mayors put on top of them. If that is done without referendums, we will be back here in 20 years’ time—[Interruption.]I very much hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is still here in 20 years’ time so that we can discuss these important matters. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g764.5
I do not think the Prime Minister had any intention of making me the Secretary of State for Health, but now that he has heard from the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will not.We will return to the legitimacy of these changes if there are no referendums. Although the Government might well push the provisions through and order these mayors to be appointed, if there is not that validation through referendums the component parts of the super-areas will chafe. They will say, “We are paying taxes to pay for the centre of a city to which we have no real link. We would rather be run from Whitehall than by these funny people in a town hall with whom we have no real link.” The referendum lock follows the grain of the developing referendum theory of government in this country and will ensure that the process is more successful in the long run. In opposing the amendment, the Government are probably being short-termist.I promised the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that I would come on to the amendment about first past the post and why I have put my name to it. I am very grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove proposed it and had he not done so I would have tabled my own amendment. I believe in first past the post as the fairest electoral system. I think that people get what they vote for rather than what they do not vote for. They get what they most like, not what they least dislike. The fundamental problem with proportional systems is that nobody gets what they want. Everybody gets something else, because the votes go off in all sorts of different directions. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g765.1
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. They got exactly what they wanted. They got a referendum that decided that they would remain part of the United Kingdom and then they voted for champions to come to this place and represent them constituency by constituency. That is how first past the post works. I wish that they had all voted Conservative; it is a great shame that they did not. The system worked effectively to represent what most people in Scotland wanted. Sadly, most people in Scotland did not want the Conservatives to have 56 MPs. How that aberration could have come about, I do not know, and I am sure that in time it will change. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g765.3
It was indeed worse in 1997.However, the majority in each constituency, or at least a plurality in each constituency, got exactly what they voted for and not one of the three Unionist parties in those constituencies was able to compete. That seems perfectly fair. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g766.1
I was going to say that it was because of my efforts in Glenrothes in 1997, but I think that that would be untrue. I would be accused of misleading the House. I think it is to do with the fact that we have a fantastic leader of the Conservatives in Scotland and an inspired Secretary of State. The two combine to make Conservatism in Scotland the coming force. However, that strays from the main topic of why first past the post is a preferable system. It is important to have a victory for the most popular rather than the least unpopular. It encourages the most charismatic figures and people who have a strong party affiliation to stand. That is important.I am not a great believer in having huge numbers of independents running our great cities. There is a danger that if we take people outside the party system they do not have a particular badge to stand under and it is not clear at the outset what they represent, other than independence. They have no fall-back as regards having someone senior in the political system to get in touch with to guide them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-07b.742.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g766.3
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Though it is indeed customary that he who holds the Floor decides whether to give way, is it not also customary to answer questions when they are put in interventions? We are waiting for the right hon. Gentleman’s answer on Iraq. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-02d.323.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g347.3
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes interesting and important points, none more important than those he was making today about the persecution of Christians.I want to cover initially the question of the scheduling of this debate, which has been raised in interventions both by me and by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) because the scrutiny of European Union decisions by this House is important. It is a fundamental democratic right that this House is able to scrutinise the decisions made by the Government, and that needs to be done in a timely fashion. This debate was asked for in September; we are now two months on. It is worth bearing it in mind that the longest outstanding demand for a debate was one first made nearly two years ago. The second anniversary will come up in January, and if we have not had the debate by then I shall no doubt hold a birthday party for it. It is quite improper of Her Majesty’s Government to treat the House of Commons in that fashion. When debates are asked for, if the Government do not want to give them, there is a procedure under Standing Orders to put a motion before the House to refuse the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-24b.1306.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1320.2
I must finish my point on this crucial issue because it is appalling of the Government to take this high-handed line with scrutiny in the House of Commons. It may be that the Minister did not know that this debate was asked for, but if he cared to read, daily, the daily agenda and the requirements for debates, he would have seen that this debate appeared day in, day out. If the Minister has not heard that from his officials, or read it for himself or been told it by the Whips, that is not the fault of the European Scrutiny Committee; it is that the Government are deliberately obstructing debate in this House. They always have time.I will finish on this point shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is so important because we need to have these debates scheduled properly and quickly. The time that we have now is outside the normal sitting hours, so the argument that there was no day previously when it could have been held is false. We could have an extra 90-minute debate on any day since the request was made by the European Scrutiny Committee two months ago. And that is not the worst of the Government’s treatment of debate in the House. It is quite wrong that the Government should shy away from democratic accountability. I shall say no more on that today, but it is a subject that I will come back to if the Government do not treat the Chamber of the House of Commons properly.To come on to the documents, I am afraid that I am going to change tack because the Government find me in support of what they are trying to do and, indeed, accepting of the override of scrutiny. When it comes to sanctions on individuals and the lifting of those sanctions, they cannot necessarily go through the full scrutiny process prior to the decision being reported to the House because, particularly when sanctions are being imposed, people would have the opportunity to avoid them in advance. There is a natural understanding of the confidentiality in relation to imposing and lifting sanctions and of the sensitivity with which this was being discussed with Iran. That is completely reasonable.The second point that is worth making is that most of this was agreed under article 29 of the treaties on the European Union, which operates under unanimity. That is relevant because it shows that the European Union can work on a unanimous basis without any sacrifice of sovereignty by the individual member states. That is a model for future European activity—that we should take action when everybody is agreed because it is then much more powerful.That is the next point: what has been done has succeeded and what was being aimed for was of the greatest importance. Trying to ensure that Iran did not become a nuclear state in the broad perspective of global security must have been a pre-eminent interest. It is worth noting that the most rogue of rogue states, which I think is North Korea, is secure in its wrongdoing and its internal oppression and is cocking a snook at the rest of the world because Kim Jong-un has a nuclear weapon. Those of us who wish to see a sensible world order want a limit on the number of states with nuclear weapons, and want to try to stop states that are on the margins of the international order getting hold of nuclear weapons. This is a successful policy that has had great advantages for security, but in the process that the Government have undertaken with other states and with the United Nations an important step has been taken in bringing Iran back into the global community. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think it is a great advantage that Iran is back in the community of nations.It has long been the case that the best way of achieving international security is dealing with nation states, but all nation states have an inherent interest in their own stability. They wish to maintain law and order within their own nation because it threatens their rule if they do not do so. That makes most nation states in most circumstances the enemy of the terrorist. The terrorist is a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the rogue nation state is likely to be. Equally, the rogue nation state is easier to deal with, because it has a structure that can be attacked from outside if fundamental national interests are offended. Terrorists cannot be attacked in that way, because they are harder to pin down.We have come to the point in British foreign policy—and, perhaps more importantly, US foreign policy—at which Iran is being brought back into the family of nations. That could be a significant boost to our ability to ensure security in the middle east but also more broadly because it goes back to a fundamental principle that has generally been accepted by most countries since the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648: the principle that it is the nation state that underpins that security. It is what went wrong from the late 1990s onwards, when it was thought better to interfere in the internal activities of nation states to make them better nation states. That policy turned out to be fundamentally wrong-headed.We have gained three very good things from the suspension of sanctions. First, it has been shown that the EU can work on the basis of unanimity. Secondly, it has reduced the likelihood of Iran having a nuclear bomb, and, thirdly—this is overwhelmingly the most important—there has been a change of attitude back to treating the nation state as the building block of global security. I very much hope that the Government will apply that in other cases. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-24b.1306.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1321.2
The European Scrutiny Committee did not object to the scrutiny override in these circumstances. Its objection has been to the delay in scheduling this debate, which was asked for in September. Here we are in November and we have finally got it. It is the slowness that is the source of complaint. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-24b.1306.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1310.0
I am not entirely clear about my hon. Friend’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Were there sensitivities prior to the agreement on 14 July, or did they come afterwards and therefore contribute to the delay in having the debate in this House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-24b.1306.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1307.2
In looking for these 100 MPs, how many does my hon. Friend see on the Opposition Benches currently? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g993.3
My hon. Friend is congratulating the hon. Lady, but he has not yet congratulated the Chairman of Ways and Means, who conducts the draw. It has become something of a tradition to congratulate him on the way in which he does the draw. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g993.5
My hon. Friend is saying, and I agree with him, that it should be for schools to decide. Does he think that it should be a voluntary activity for the pupils, or is he suggesting that they should be compelled to participate? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g995.0
My hon. Friend is making such an important point. When things are done well by the voluntary sector, is it always necessary for the state to come in in a heavy-handed way, get rid of all the good work that is being done by others, and impose its own solution? Is it not better to encourage voluntary activity to flourish? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1000.0
My hon. Friend is making the crucial point that people might have had first aid training at school, but many of them will have left school quite a long time ago. What efforts does he think could be made, without resorting to heavy-handed legislation, to encourage people to renew those skills? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g989.0
My hon. Friend has suggested something that would break my rule of not legislating for specific subjects; to have Latin on the curriculum must be an advantage. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g991.0
My hon. Friend is making an important point. What people do voluntarily they do with more enthusiasm than that which they are ordered to do by the state. Is it not right therefore that that is a better model? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g984.4
Following on from what my hon. Friend has been saying, does he agree that this is actually a very bureaucratic response requiring lots of guidance from the Secretary of State? It is back to the bad old days of schools being lumbered with endless instructions and directives from Whitehall. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.984.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g985.6
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend saw the report in yesterday’s Daily Mail that said that under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, it would be illegal to take on locums in place of striking doctors. Does he agree that if that is true, the law should be changed? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-20a.962.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g965.4
My right hon. Friend must know that this is pretty thin gruel—it is much less than people had come to expect from the Government. It takes out a few words from the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties; it deals with competition, for which the European Commission itself has a proposal; and it fails to restore control of our borders. It seems to me that its whole aim is to make Harold Wilson’s renegotiation look respectable. It needs to do more; it needs to have a full list of powers that will be restored to the United Kingdom and to this Parliament, not vacuously to Parliaments plural. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-10a.223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g232.2
It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who fills a seat that was taken by a most distinguished predecessor. Richard Shepherd was a wonderful Member of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. He believed so much in this institution, and we should all rejoice at the fact that my hon. Friend now takes his place and is showing herself to be a serious parliamentarian, committed to the processes of this House.You, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not here last week when a new tradition began, which I would like to continue. It is that of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carries out the ballot so that my hon. Friend should have come high enough up it for her Bill to come fourth. He carried out this draw with such characteristic efficiency and in such a workmanlike fashion that herBill came out low enough down to be high enough up for it to be debated today. That is a very considerable achievement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1261.1
I give way to my hon. Friend. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1262.1
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; occasionally there are innovations that are welcome, and this is one of them. For those who do not know, I should add that in the draw No. 1 used to be done first but now No. 20 is the Bill done first. It is like a game show: it brings more tension and atmosphere into the proceedings. That is how it has worked and how the Bills have come out in the way they have.This is a superb Bill. It is the reason why private Members’ Bills exist, because it is deregulating. It is such a wonderfully Tory Bill. It is a properly Conservative Bill, because it takes—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, but I could not quite hear what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was saying from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene.Why is it such a wonderfully Conservative Bill? It is because of its fundamental deregulatory nature. We have built up a state where more and more powers have been gathered to the centre, where Whitehall has the rule over all it purveys. It tells people what they must do. When it says jump, people have to say, “How high?” It was of course a Labour Cabinet Minister who said, “The fact of the matter is the man in Whitehall really does know best.” It has to be said that that was in 1947, but the fundamental principle underpinning what the socialists believe remains the same: that control should be centralised; that if instructions and diktats come from on high, the government of the country will be better run; and that individuals are not the people who can best take charge of this.We, as Conservatives, reject that fundamentally, and it is this philosophy that underpins the Bill. We take the view that the millions of random decisions taken by individuals over how they should lead their lives means better decision making, better allocation of resources and a more contented and unified society overall. By taking power away from the Secretary of State—removing appointments from his control—the Bill allows every charity across the country that is involved in supporting the health service to set out what is appropriate for its community, for its region, for its county and for its area. In Somerset, we may well want different approaches from that which is suitable for the centre of London. Different approaches will be wanted in Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Surrey. Even in Gloucestershire they may have some thought as to how they wish to approach these things. [Interruption.] And in Hampshire, that fine county. Hampshire, one of the great counties, which was on the right side when Alfred beat Guthrum, is always to be admired in these contexts. These charities will decide what is appropriate and suitable for them, how they appoint and whom they have.One of my colleagues speaking earlier, I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was talking about the risk that people would be appointed for nefarious political purposes, and of course that is what has always happened. In the 18th century, it was called jobbery. I always thought that was a good word because it so nicely encapsulates what happens as we get that corruption of baubles. The Government are the owner and disperser of baubles, and there is a corruption built in, as they give those baubles, initially, not to their friends specifically, but merely to those who are not opposed to them. In the case of somebody who is opposed, it would be “going too far” to allow an appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. It really “would not do” to appoint somebody on the other wing of politics. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1262.3
I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says; it is so important that we have enough time. It is why Fridays are such a pleasure, because there is time to discuss a Bill in full and in the round, and to consider the principles underpinning it, the details of it, and what would happen to it if it were to be brought into effect. That is proper parliamentary procedure. I have such admiration for those great heroes of the 19th century—[Interruption]—talking of which I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1263.1
Madam Deputy Speaker is giving me one of her looks. As much as I would like to discuss reform of the House of Lords, I would be ruled out of order. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must get back to jobbery, because jobbery and avoiding jobbery are at the heart of the Bill.I was explaining how jobbery, when it starts, is not a deliberate corruption. It is merely the recognition that it just would not do to appoint somebody on the other extreme of politics. We can hear Sir Humphrey going to the Secretary of State and saying, “It would be a little brave, Minister, to appoint such a person who is on so different a wing from you.” The next time an appointment comes up, there is the thought, “Well, if I couldn’t appoint someone who was actively opposed, perhaps I should really only appoint people who are on my side”—in other words, our mates and friends. Thus we get to the heart of jobbery. Appointments are made purely because of somebody’s political colour and context.In the primary care trust in Bath and North East Somerset which preceded the current organisations a local Conservative had a judicial review against the previous Labour Government to get himself appointed as its chairman, because he was the most qualified person and had been refused only on the basis that he was a Conservative. Therefore, the idea that jobbery has completely left the system is false, and so too is the idea that Governments are so high and mighty and Olympian in their decision making that they do not descend to mere political jobbery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1263.3
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant and crucial point. We want to get away from jobbery wherever it happens, and it is most likely to happen in areas where one party is in government for a very long time. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1264.2
There was an urgent question on the matter, and I do not think that there is any more for me to say on it.Jobbery is a real problem. It comes more when a party is in office for a very long time. The system gets accustomed to appointing people who belong to routine consensus political views, and they are the ones who get the baubles.Many of these charitable baubles are unpaid, but they come with a great deal of status in their communities, so there is a benefit to the person receiving them. It is right that such decisions should be more independent of the Government. It is right not just because of the ability to get away from jobbery, but because many people—those on the Treasury Bench will be shocked to hear this—do not trust the Government. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1264.5
I know. The Minister in his seat is looking appalled at that suggestion, but it is true. Many people think that if there is any possibility of the Government getting their grubby paws on a little bit of money, those grubby paws will dart out and the money will be raked in. There is of course a history of Government doing that. For example, hypothecated taxes have been introduced for particular purposes. When the Government run a bit short of money, or find that too much is being paid in the hypothecated taxes, they dehypothecate them—they put them to another purpose. I am thinking of national insurance, which was introduced as an insurance scheme, and of the road fund licence, which was introduced to build our roads. Both of those were syphoned off by Governments, arguably for very good reasons, which I will not go into because they are too broad for this Bill. I merely wish to illustrate the point that charities need to be robust in spending the money on what it has been given for, and not on any other thing, and if they cannot spend it on that which it has been given for, they should give it back to the people who gave it in the first place. The reason that that is important is partly that we believe in the rights of property—this is a Tory Bill. If property belongs to a specific designated purpose then that is what it is there for; it is not there to be used for any random purpose that someone thinks is a good idea at some later stage. There are many good purposes, and there are many charities that some people think do less good things than the good purpose that they have thought up, so there is always pressure to reallocate resources in the way that a Government, or some authority, think is preferable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1264.7
I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because that is exactly the point. It is one of those occasions where rigour really helps. If donors feel that their money will be used properly, they are more willing to give. It is fascinating how charity law has developed in this direction in recent years. Historically, if people gave money to charities, they gave it to the charity for its general purposes. Then they discovered that the general purposes of charities included all sorts of jolly things, such as lunch at the Ritz, so increasingly they have given money for limited purposes, and the funds can then only be spent on those purposes, even within a single charity. For example, if people viewing this debate wish to make donations for the renewal and restoration of this Palace, that money could only be spent on the renewal and restoration of this Palace; it could not be used for other purposes. Charity law has gone that way because it encourages people to give, as they have confidence in how the money will be spent. That is crucial for NHS charities, because there is this large pool of Government money, but it is never quite enough. We hear of deficits, and hospitals and doctors wanting more money, and all of that is a constant pressure on the health service. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1265.1
My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1265.3
I give way to my fellow Garrick member. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1267.1
I was confusing my authors of children’s literature. I got “Winnie-the-Pooh” right; I was just attributing it to the wrong man. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. So I do not have an interest to declare. I must de-declare my interest in relation to the topic on which I was talking.Leaving such a legacy is a wonderfully generous thing to do, along with the flexibility in allowing the copyright law to be adapted so that one play can provide resources for a hospital, where the two come together. We all know the story very well. The childhood story of Peter Pan, ever-youthful—Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at you, I see the ever-youthful Deputy Speaker—is a great one to combine with a children’s hospital, which is there to care for children at their weakest time, not just those from London, but those from across the country, as we have heard. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1267.3
That is an interesting point, but probably, no, I would not agree. Such an extension should happen in highly exceptional circumstances, rather than made a general rule, because copyright law needs to be simple and fair. If it were used to advance particular charities, it would give an option on copyright that was ultimately extendable to a charity of the donor’s choice and we might end up with strange, effectively, avoidance measures to pass money through generations and extensions that had not been intended in the legislation. The length of copyright is already quite long beyond the author’s death, and that provides plenty of charitable donations in the normal course of events. Although I believe in rigour in what one believes politically and in trying to follow logic through to its end, the fact that “Peter Pan” is such an exceptional play and Great Ormond Street is such an exceptional hospital shows that there should be exceptions that make the system fundamentally more human. Therefore, I am in favour of such an extension as a one-off, but I would not welcome it as a general rule.I have one question for the Minister, however, on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The trade agreement with the United States will look particularly at matters that relate to intellectual copyright. It might be important specifically to exclude “Peter Pan”—along with the French, who are excluding all their dodgy films, but that is slightly by the bye—because I can envisage a Hollywood studio making a film of “Peter Pan” and finding that it had to pay royalties in the United Kingdom but nowhere else, and that might conceivably fall foul of TTIP. I do not want to raise absurd difficulties for TTIP, which is a good scheme and is enormously welcome, but this is such an exception not just to our laws of copyright but to the normal international laws of copyright that it would be a pity if the system were not robust and could not continue. It may not be disastrous, because American film-makers are good, decent, noble people, and it is hard to think that they would be so mean-minded and damage their reputation, which is probably more to the point—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) needs to shout a bit louder—I cannot hear his sedentary interruptions, but they sound fascinating, and I wish he would share them with the House. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene. American film-makers would not want to damage their reputation by being aggressive on “Peter Pan”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1268.0
If I were talking nonsense, Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order under Standing Orders that refer to a speech being both tedious and repetitious. I do not think that I am being either of those, nor wandering— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1268.2
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a side concern, but it is something that everyone in the House wishes to see— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1268.4
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never sought to model myself on Nostradamus, so I am not looking into a glass bowl lit by candles to see what will happen in future. I am concentrating on the here and now—the present—and this important and beneficial Bill. I have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on introducing such a sound and wisely based measure that does something for the good of the whole nation and which will encourage the great vein of charitable giving that has provided so much for people across the centuries and shows what can be done beyond the state.There is a feeling that everything has to be wrapped up and organised by Her Majesty’s Government: that welfare, health and education should come from the Government, and that no other parties should become involved. That is not true. We want to allow the natural charitable instincts of the British people to bloom, and they do. The British people are some of the most generous in the world, not because they are chugged and all those things, but because it is in their nature. It is their instinct to want to support good causes. That is why, across the country, we have wards bearing people’s names which have been built as a result of the generosity of benefactors who want better health care in the United Kingdom. That is why there are organisations such as the Wellcome Trust, which is a charitable organisation that improves the quality of medicine, and why people work from a charitable basis to develop new medicines and care, particularly palliative care, much of which is provided by the voluntary sector. I was a trustee for some years of St John and St Elizabeth, a hospital near Lord’s cricket ground, which provides the only hospice in central London, funded by charitable donations from those who feel that looking after people at the end of their life is a fundamental calling, and is not something that can invariably be done by the state.Not every charge should go to the state; not every action should be borne by the state or taxpayer. It is right and proper that we allow charity to flourish and bloom, but then we have to put it in a protective envelope and protect it not just from this Government but from Governments to come, who may see that as a useful source of revenue and think that they can cut a few corners. They may find at the end of the year that they are a little short of money, which can be raised by selling off charities as assets. There are Governments who do those things: they run into financial crises and are desperate to do them. The Bill provides a statutory framework to protect charities. When people know that their money is protected they are more likely to give generously. That is something that has underpinned all economic activity in this country for centuries: the certainty that, under the rule of law, someone’s property is theirs to do what they like with, and will be used for the purpose for which they have given it if it is donated to charity.Reinforcing and ring-fencing that and putting it into a short Bill is a magnificent thing to do. It is one little notch that the axeman is making, cutting down the great oak tree of excessive governmental interference. I hope that we will have more private Members’ Bills of this kind, and that the axeman will swing his axe more vigorously and the cuts—the nicks—become bigger and bigger until the overarching tree comes down and we have a greater and freer society in which individuals can do more from their own talents, their property is protected and the dead hand of the state is removed as far as possible. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1269.2
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1256.2
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent explanation of what the Bill would do. Ordinary charities are not, of course, allowed to put money on Lucky Lad in the 3.10 at Uttoxeter, or wherever it may be. I hope that that is not a widespread problem, but if it is, my hon. Friend should bring it to the attention of the Charity Commission. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1256.4
Mr Barrie had better not cheer from the Gallery; if he did, he would be ruled out of order. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-11-06b.1235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1254.2
Does my hon. Friend agree with the further point that clause 5(1)(b) might provide an incentive to increase the total number of carers because people would have a strong need to say that they were carers or had the intention to be carers—even if the reality were completely different, which would mean falsely inflating the figures? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g652.0
Perhaps my hon. Friend intends to mention it, but he is ignoring the reduction in the availability of spaces that would come about without charges—people would be able to park all day, and there would be much less control. It is not going to make it easier for carers to park if all the spaces are taken and they are blocked. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g657.0
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g648.1
I am rather surprised by my hon. Friend’s burst of socialism and that he should be discouraging the use of the motor car, which should be encouraged in a free society. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g631.4
I am following my hon. Friend’s speech very closely. Is the heart of what he is saying that the scheme proposed in the Bill would prove so complex to administer that it would in effect be the end of all car parking charges, because to continue to have any charges would make the whole system collapse? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g638.0
To follow on from that, will the public or the private appeals system for parking offences be used? The two are completely different and have different statutory backings. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g638.2
I do indeed. The more the motor car is used, the better. My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the matter. One can ration either by price or by queue. There is no other way of determining how supply and demand meet. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g639.0
I am momentarily puzzled about how the usage of a car park can exceed 100%. Are the cars crashing into each other or parked on top of each other? Can my hon. Friend explain? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g640.0
I just want to say that I am sure things like that do not happen in Somerset. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g642.0
Is my hon. Friend saying that carers who currently receive the benefit of free parking would have to be removed from the Torbay scheme if the Bill were brought into law, because they would not qualify and Torbay would have to change the scheme? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g643.1
I wonder whether the Bill’s proponents have considered the human rights implications of taking a revenue source away from a private company without compensation. The Bill makes no provision for compensation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g644.0
Can my hon. Friend explain whether under clauses 2 and 5 somebody can quality for this allowance but not be eligible, or be eligible but not qualify? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-30a.618.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g645.0
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification, but in this case the section 38 process followed immediately from the report into the misconduct allegations, so the two were intimately and intricately linked. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-29a.608.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g613.2
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the issue of the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the police and crime commissioner in chief constable dismissal procedures. Inevitably, this relates to the recent experience of the Avon and Somerset constabulary and of its former chief constable, Nick Gargan.The Avon and Somerset constabulary has a wonderful history and reputation. It is a fine police force, if not one of the finest in the country, and it deserves the best possible leadership. It has now been without a chief constable since May 2014, and there are concerns that more than £500,000 has been spent, and that the inquiry has been mishandled, in the ultimate removal of Mr Gargan.The story started with a slew of lurid, even criminal, allegations. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) will cover in detail the failings of the IPCC, it is worth noting that it did nothing to stop rumours abounding. It continued to pretend that criminal charges were being considered when they were not, and used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to investigate. One of the team examining the issues was the support commissioner, a Mrs Williams, who was not necessarily impartial as she herself was the subject of an earlier unrelated complaint from Mr Gargan.Although in some ways the police and crime commissioner may have been a victim of the process, Mrs Sue Mountstevens is not herself without blame. She has an elected mandate to oversee the police force in Avon and Somerset. She used this, shortly after her initial election, to remove the previous chief constable and was then instrumental in appointing Mr Gargan. When the report on Mr Gargan was ultimately produced, recommending eight written warnings for misconduct, her initial reaction was to accept it, but she later changed her mind and applied under section 38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to force the chief constable to resign.This change of mind came about because of letters from superintendents and from the Police Federation indicating their lack of confidence in the chief constable. However, that correspondence must have been predicated on the IPCC report, and on leaked information pertaining to it, that we now know to be fundamentally flawed. So the lack of confidence in the chief constable was based on rumour and error, not on facts. This led to the removal of a second chief constable during this police and crime commissioner’s term of office, but it was done essentially because of the PCC’s willingness to bow to pressure, and not because of a mature considered judgment.This leads me to the issue of the section 38 powers and how they were used. I have corresponded with Sir Thomas Winsor about this, and he has sent me a thoughtful letter and a copy of a valuable lecture that he gave in relation to these powers. In his letter, he says that the use of the powers in this instance does not involve double jeopardy and that“he was therefore not dismissed for the misconduct of which he was found guilty; as said, he could not have been, because there was no finding of gross misconduct”.That is to say that Mr Gargan was not fired for misconduct because it had not been gross misconduct. That is intelligent sophistry, but it is none the less sophistical. I disagree with it because the loss of confidence was instrumentally caused by the misconduct allegations and the punishment for misconduct. Additionally, a number of leaks relating to criminal activity and to some of the material found on Mr Gargan’s telephone led people to think that much more serious things had happened than were in fact proved. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-29a.608.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g608.2
My right hon. Friend, as so often, hits the nail on the head. The one block that there should have been to this, the police and crime commissioner, turned out to be weak in the face of this trial by media and this public pressure. That is deeply unsatisfactory, because it means that the loss of confidence in somebody who has been found not guilty may be sufficient to remove them from the job, so if someone throws enough mud and a little bit of it sticks then that could justify a lack of confidence, and thus leak, rumour and gossip replace hard fact, which risks the independence of the constabulary. In his own lecture, Sir Thomas Winsor said that“sufficient security of tenure is essential to safeguard those aspects of a Chief Constable’s role that relate to operational independence. Operational independence would be seriously compromised by a power for a Police and Crime Commissioner to dismiss the Chief Constable at will.”At the heart of our concern is the fact that a flawed process, a weak police and crime commissioner and the power of gossip allowed a chief constable to be dismissed. That must undermine the ability in future of chief constables to take difficult decisions if they know that unfounded or minor misdemeanours may be used to force them out. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-29a.608.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g609.1
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West will make some remarks in relation to the vested interests that emerged through the course of this process, which we should be concerned about. We should note that the no confidence in the chief constable arose before the final publication of the report, so it had to be based on rumour and not on fact. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-29a.608.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g609.3
Yes, and smear. It has been a damaging process for confidence in the police service. It has been damaging to the Avon and Somerset constabulary. It has obviously been particularly damaging for Mr Gargan.It is against a long-standing tradition of English justice—this is the most important point—that somebody should be tried for the same offence twice. I know that Mr Gargan would like to meet the Police Minister to discuss these matters, so that Her Majesty’s Government are fully informed about all that has gone wrong in this process. That would be helpful. Furthermore, a more general review of section 38 powers is needed, and the role of the IPCC needs to be examined and the backbone of police and crime commissioners X-rayed to see what, if anything, they are made of. That may help to ensure that such a serious problem does not arise again. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-29a.608.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g609.5
My friends on the Scottish National party Front Bench want me to mention that, from 1407—the beginning of the 15th century—the Commons was given primacy over financial matters. That was confirmed in our motion of 1678, when all matters of taxation and expenditure were to be the preserve of this House. In 1839, the Speaker of the House of Commons insisted that an amendment from the House of Lords on a financial matter must be rejected. At that date, the House of Commons would not even consider the change of a trustee of a turnpike trust if it was suggested by the House of Lords, so jealous were we of the privilege that the democratic House must have control of taxation and expenditure.May I urge my right hon. Friend to send the clearest message to the House of Lords that, if their lordships do not obey the conventions that have governed this country for centuries, they will be forced to do so by legislation? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-28a.349.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g353.5
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-27b.197.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g198.5
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-27b.197.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g199.0
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder what you will do to remind their lordships of our declaration of privilege from 1678, declaring that all financial matters pertain to this House, a privilege that the House of Lords has now ignored only three times since 1860. As our mouthpiece, will you bring that to the attention of their lordships in no uncertain terms? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-27b.197.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g199.3
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-27b.197.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g200.1
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I want to refer back to this House’s claim of privilege, which we have made for many centuries. I would have thought that you were the defender of this House’s privileges and that this is beyond the immediate political debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-27b.197.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g200.3
My starting point is that the price of the Union for England is asymmetric devolution. England, by virtue of being more than 80% of the population and the richest part of the Union, must accept that devolution to Scotland, to Northern Ireland and to Wales cannot be equalled in England because if it were England would overwhelm the rest of the United Kingdom. That would be the greatest risk to the Union, which I want to preserve. I welcome these proposals because of their modesty, because they make the change through Standing Orders and because they maintain the equality of every Member of Parliament. Their modesty means that they are not seeking to create an English Parliament— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1226.1
Talking of modesty, of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1226.3
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he seems to be forgetting that there was a referendum last year that decided quite decisively what would happen.I think that Members have been ignoring the detail of these Standing Order changes. They provide that the English-only lock can take effect only if the matter both applies exclusively to England and, crucially, is in the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. If either side of the coin is not there, every MP continues as before. It is a minimal move to ensure that those matters that are devolved elsewhere are subject to a special stage for English MPs only. Crucially, it is done by Standing Order.The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) gave us an interesting view on Lord Hope’s opinion that our laws could be challenged if they are made using this procedure. I am afraid that is an eccentric position to take, because our laws are made in the House of Commons according to a mix of convention and Standing Order. The reason we have First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading is because of convention and Standing Order, not because of legislation.Indeed, there are only two bits of legislation that say how we must make laws: one is the Parliament Act 1911, which is there to provide an override for the democratic House; and the other, rather obscurely, is a 1968 law concerning Royal Assent, the ceremony for which was so elaborate that it had to be simplified, and that needed to be done by legislation. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) says that was a shame, and I have no doubt that he has consulted Her Majesty on the matter.Otherwise, we always legislate by convention and Standing Order. That is absolutely crucial, because the last general election could easily have returned a result that meant that the Government would be made up of Labour Members who were dependent on Scottish Members for their majority. It would then have been quite proper for them to suspend the Standing Orders in order to ensure that the Government were able to function. That is something that those of us who support these changes to the Standing Orders must accept; it is weak, and therefore it can be overturned, with a political cost, to ensure that the Queen’s Government can be carried on. Those words—“that the Queen’s Government can be carried on”—is a fundamental part of a Tory view of how the country should be run.I will conclude my remarks by addressing the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on the Lords message. The Lords are once again trespassing on our privilege when they ask for a Joint Committee on our Standing Orders. The Bradlaugh case established very clearly that each House is responsible for its own procedures. They might want a Joint Committee on how devolution for England works, but it was an impertinence of their lordships’ House to ask for a Joint Committee to discuss our Standing Orders. We mustvote the amendment down with a big majority to reassert the rights of the House of Commons, and we may have to remind their lordships of something similar on Monday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1227.0
It is most important that the proposal does not create a second-class tier of Members of Parliament. Given that it comes under Standing Orders, in the event of there being a Government who are dependent on Scottish votes for their majority, they could repeal the Standing Order. Therefore the basis of the authority of each MP remains identical. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1199.0
indicated dissent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1195.2
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1187.6
The hon. Gentleman’s point about two classes of MP is important and one that we should tread very carefully towards. I wonder whether this is not the same as MPs serving on a Committee, which is limited in number, meaning that not all MPs can be present, yet can still be overruled by the whole House through, in this instance, a suspension of Standing Orders rather than having a legislative method, which would make it much more complicated. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1188.0
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-22b.1159.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1193.2
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his assurances, which are extremely welcome, and for acknowledging that Somerset is an extremely special place. On that basis, I will not press my amendments later. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.1016.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1045.0
I am very interested in the point that my hon. Friend is making, but concerned that his proposal would undermine one of the principles behind what the Government are doing, which is to ensure that there is consent for the proposals. Does he feel that if what he is describing were to happen, it would be right to have a referendum to ensure that people were not having decisions made for them wrongly by the hierarchy above them? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.1016.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1029.0
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very clear answer. Is it therefore the case that if an area refuses devolution, the money stays with Whitehall but can still be spent in that area, and that refusing devolution results in no financial loss? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1007.1
May I add to what the Minister has just said? In my dealings with Mr Meacher in this House, he never put his strongly held political views above his fundamental good manners and civilisation. He was always the most decent man to talk to, even though I doubt there was a single subject of any political importance on which we agreed. He is a loss to this Chamber.I will come on to my amendment 46, which would exempt Somerset, God’s own county, from the provisions on having a mayor. The Minister suggested that Somerset was not exceptional. I think that that was a momentary lapse because he is not only a most honourable gentleman, but somebody of fundamental good nature and wisdom. We will forgive him such a momentary mental lapse on this occasion and put it down to the wet weather or something like that.The Government are giving fine and good undertakings. I will quote briefly from the Secretary of State on Second Reading:“It is a fundamental tenet of this Bill, in contrast to other reforms debated over many years, that it does not give me or any of my ministerial colleagues the power to impose any arrangement on any local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 326-327.]My hon. Friend the Minister has reiterated those undertakings. They are excellent and encouraging, and they provide a solid basis for proceeding. Unfortunately, there is a “but” coming.Everything I hear from local councillors in North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset tells me that they are having their arms twisted. We are seeing a velvet glove today—a finely manufactured velvet glove of the highest quality velvet. Behind it, however, is a firm iron fist that expresses the Government’s will thatthings should go in a certain way. I encourage the Government, through my amendment, to make the background noises—the conversations in smoke-filled rooms—match the fine words that we are hearing in this House.And so I come to why I want to exempt Somerset. Well, there is history—there is always history! I will start, as always, with Alfred the Great. If we go all the way back to 879, Bristol was in Mercia and Somerset in Wessex. One of those two kingdoms was completely under the Danes—that was obviously the Gloucestershire bit. The borderline between the two has been there for over 1,000 years. There is a strongly embedded history in Somerset and, indeed, in Bristol which means that they see themselves as independent, distinct units.It is important that the Government go with the grain of communities that have built up over generations, centuries and, in this case, even a millennium, rather than create new administrative regions that mean very little to people. Most people have no interest in the title of their council. They have an interest in where their home is. Their home may relate to a great city, to a great county or to a village, a county and the country. The use of power needs to go with that. Therefore, devolution from the United Kingdom to an administrative body with which people do not have sympathy and about which they do not have a feeling makes things no better. People have a loyalty to the nation and a loyalty to their locality, but if interspersed between them is some random political agglomeration that came about through a sudden burst of enthusiasm by a Government, people have no association with that, no enthusiasm for it and no loyalty for the institution.Of course, this has been tried before. This is my second and perhaps more important appeal to history in the context of Somerset, particularly in relation to North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset. We were part of a much disliked, most unsuccessful, high-cost organisation called Avon. It is known to the cognoscenti as CUBA—the county that used to be Avon. The name CUBA was appropriate because it was almost as left-wing as Mr Castro in its approach to government and it was exceptionally expensive. It had one of the highest increases in rates in the 1980s. It was felt by people in the rural areas that it was run for the benefit of Bristol, with the cost being borne by people in rural areas.We continue to see that in Avon and Somerset police, the cost of which is borne by the rural areas, even though—I am sorry to say this with the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) sitting opposite me—most of the crime is in Bristol. Inevitably, being an inner city, Bristol has more drug dealing, more armed crime and more social disorder than Nempnett Thrubwell and other villages in my constituency, which are bastions of law-abiding civility. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g994.2
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, because it brilliantly encapsulates what I want to say, which is that Bristol is a fantastic city, a noble city, a city of fine history, but it is not Somerset. What I want to do is to protect Somerset from encroachment by Bristol. I want Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that the people of Somerset are not subjected to any pressure, any force or any arm twisting to be ruled from Bristol or to subsidise Bristol. I would rather, and I know the people of Somerset would rather, see our money spent through decisions made in Whitehall than decisions made in Bristol. We see the unity of the nation and we see the history of our county; what we do not see is a random administrative area.I hope that the Minister can give me one commitment, which is that if we do not sign up to these things and if we retain our independence and freedom of manoeuvre, the Government institutions that spend money, such as Highways England, will continue to spend money—that it will not mean any loss of money, but will merely be about who decides how it is spent. For once, I am trusting the man in Whitehall against the man in red trousers in Bristol. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g996.0
The whole concept of entrenchment in legislation is very interesting, but it is very difficult without a written constitution. Would the hon. Gentleman like to move to a written constitution to be able to entrench such powers? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g992.0
They are a special case. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g977.4
My hon. Friend makes the important point that rural areas should be protected. Will he give the House an undertaking that rural areas that are close to urban areas will be protected from being swallowed up by those neighbouring cities? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.963.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g971.0
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, if the other place were to vote against changes to working tax credits, that would be a serious challenge to the privilege of this House—a privilege that was codified as long ago as 1678? Does he further share my concern that such a move would entitle him to review the decisions of Grey and Asquith on creating more peers, to ensure that the Government get their financial business through? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.946.11&s=speaker%3A24926#g955.0
My right hon. Friend said that we have maintained our own border controls. I wonder how effective he thinks that is when we admitted 183,000 economic migrants from the European Union last year and how effective it will continue to be if he and the German Chancellor have their wish and Turkey becomes a full member. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-19a.655.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g668.2
The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to reduce the deficit, but whenever any cut is proposed, he is against it. What would he cut? What would he do to balance the books? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-14a.427.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g435.7
Will the hon. Lady give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-15b.964.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g968.3
Will the hon. Lady give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-15b.964.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g968.7
Will the hon. Lady give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-15b.964.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g970.0
Will the hon. Lady give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-15b.964.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g972.3
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on her promotion and her new appointment. She is now more than quarter of an hour into her speech, but we still do not know where the £3.4 billion would be saved from, if not from this measure? The Opposition cannot be credible if they are still going to go for further deficit spending. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-15b.964.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g972.6
Is my right hon. Friend not showing with this legislation, once again, that the Conservative Government are standingup for people who want to work and against bullies who want to stop them. That is what fundamentally underlies his approach? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-14b.760.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g765.9
If we do not pass this amendment to the timetable, we finish at 10 o’clock, so we would have less time than is currently proposed. If we support the right hon. Gentleman, we cut our nose off to spite our face. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-07b.71.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g72.0
indicated dissent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-07b.71.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g72.2
There is widespread support for the Prime Minister’s generous decision to take 20,000 refugees, but last year alone we took 183,000 economic migrants from theEuropean Union. I wonder whether that is proportionate, or whether we could not be more generous to refugees if we were less obsessed with the free movement of people. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-09-07b.23.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g56.4
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the shadow Chancellor to say that he will give way to the Secretary of State and then not give way? [Interruption.] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-09a.470.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g478.12
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). I enjoyed most of his speech, other than the peroration, with which I disagreed fundamentally.Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a real pleasure to welcome you to the Chair. This is the first time I have spoken while you are in the Chair since your election to the deputy speakership. I know that the whole House is thrilled to see somebody who chaired the Backbench Business Committee with such distinction taking over as one of the Deputy Speakers.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) on her maiden speech. I hope that she will encourage the Queen’s Champion to return for a coronation banquet in Westminster Hall, which we had until the reign of George IV, but which were abandoned because they became too raucous. It is lucky that proceedings in this House are not abandoned when behaviour becomes too raucous.I congratulate the Chancellor on his Budget. Turning to the Red Book, I want to start with something that will be particularly welcome in Somerset: the small cider exemption. That will allow producers to continue to provide 1,500 gallons of cider a year without coming under the auspices of the tax authorities. Our friends in Europe are having a go at the good people of Somerset and trying to tax that small quantity of cider, so I am reassured and relieved that the Chancellor has the best interests of my fellow county-men at heart.The key to this Budget, I think, are the changes in corporation tax and the approach to make companies more competitive, which will give them the opportunityto pay people more and help get them out of the trap of welfare. That moral imperative underlies the whole tone of the Budget, making it not only economically prudent but morally right. That is quite a strong claim to be able to make for a Budget, because economics and morality do not invariably mix.If we look at what is happening on the corporate side, we see that the Chancellor made the very important decision two or three years ago that examining corporation tax changes would be done on a dynamic basis. That meant that the increase in revenue, and in employment, that would result from reducing rates could be taken into account, in contrast to the historically flat approach taken by the Treasury, which assumed that other things would remain broadly equal—the ceteris paribus of economists, which always tends to be neither ceteris nor paribus. That approach has allowed him to reduce corporation tax, which has led to a much stronger underlying economic performance.However, the quid pro quo that the Budget is asking for is that some of that extra profit should be devoted to increasing the wages of some of the poorest people in society. That is the moral underpinning of what the Chancellor is doing. Even better, people who then work will keep the fruits of their labour. Therefore, raising thresholds is a fundamentally good thing to do.My noble Friend Lord Saatchi, along with another friend of mine, Peter Warburton, produced a book for the Centre for Policy Studies 10 or 15 years ago, in which they argued, “Stop poor people paying taxes.” It is idiotic to make people pay high levels of tax and then feed them back their own money through the benefits system. The more we can stop that, the more efficient the economic system will be. These corporate changes are crucial. They will help to grow the economy, boost employment and take poor people out of poverty and into solid earning work, where they will not pay tax until they are prosperous.I think that there is more to do. I hope that the Treasury will examine national insurance further. Raising the threshold from £2,000 to £3,000 is certainly welcome, but national insurance still clicks in at much too low a level. In order to continue the process of ensuring that work pays and that people can keep the fruits of their labour, national insurance is the next challenge. Income tax will be done by the end of this Parliament, but the question of national insurance is still there.In that context, what the Chancellor is doing about banks is very much to be welcomed. It was quite right that banks were punished, post-2008, for their manifold sins. That had to be done; the revenue was needed and society wanted to show its disapproval of the way in which some banks had behaved. But that has to come to an end eventually. We need a banking industry that is there to help businesses and individuals to prosper. Bringing down the bank levy and focusing it on UK assets will begin to do that, although whether the extra bit of corporation tax will ultimately prove necessary is another matter. Removing from the banks their pariah status is something we need to do eventually, but without forgiving them for all the flaws that they put upon themselves in the past.Then there is the issue of welfare, which ties in with all this. The proposals will allow people on welfare to have a better chance of getting employment and being paid more, but with some benefits being reduced. Again,I think that is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. The reason it is fair is that people who are in work ought to be better off than those who are dependent on out-of-work benefits. It is absolutely proper to defend the elderly and the disabled, because in a civilised society they deserve support, but those who can work ought to be given every financial incentive to do so. That is fair on those paying the taxes that pay for the benefits. The move to ensure that work always pays, and pays more, and that the lifestyle of those in work will be better than those who are not in work, is a good and moral imperative. With those underpinnings, and with economic sense and proper justification for fairness and good, I commend the Budget to the House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-08a.339.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g361.0
This petition concerning pedestrian access at White Cross comes from scores of my constituents to The Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.The petition states:The Humble Petition of Miss Lucy Loakes and Mrs Mary Loakes,Sheweth that the installation of a pavement running from the A37/A39 traffic lights to Bookbarn International would significantly improve access for pedestrians, particularly those who are disabled. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House considers that this pavement be considered by Bath and North East Somerset Council.And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.[P001532] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.292.5&s=speaker%3A24926#g292.6
I have received your message that you wish me to be relatively brief, Mr Speaker, and I shall do my best to abide by that and not model myself on Gladstone, whom we have had earlier reference to, and who Disraeli said was a“sophistical rhetorician, inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity.”I shall try to avoid verbosity and inebriation at the same time.It has been said in this debate that this process has been rushed. That things have been rushed is the classic objection to almost any constitutional change, and it is one I am fond of using personally, but on this occasion it would only be rushed for a member of the Roman Curia or perhaps part of the mandarin class of imperial China. The issue we are considering has been debated since the 1880s. I do not think a period of 130 years is unduly rushed. The West Lothian question itself was raised by the hon. baronet the former Member for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell, in the 1970s, but we have had plenty of time to consider and deliberate on these issues.The second major objection is that two classes of Members are being created. If I believed that to be true, I would oppose this proposal because I think there is a unity within this House that is of fundamental constitutional importance, and, looking at the SNP Benches opposite and considering the contribution its Members have already made since their election in May, it is striking how important that point is: every Member needs to be free to participate in the debates on the laws that we make. That is a reasonable and fair principle.In a characteristically forthright speech from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), we have heard that the Scotland Bill does not give Scottish MPs the same type of veto as English MPs, but I think that is wrong. It is a misunderstanding of what the Scotland Bill is doing, because if this Standing Order were already in place, the Scotland Bill would bedevolving the issues to Scotland and to English MPs in this House at the same point. Yesterday we debated the Crown estates and how they would be a devolved matter to the Scottish Parliament. If that goes through the House of Lords, it will be a matter that in England will only be voted on by English MPs, or at least they will have a veto on it. What is devolved to Scotland is equally and simultaneously devolved to England. That seems perfectly reasonable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g219.1
The double voting does not only apply to Members from England; it applies to Members from England, Wales and potentially Northern Ireland, if the issue is devolved to one Assembly but not the others. If there is a matter that is not devolved to Wales, Welsh MPs would be involved in that second lock on legislation. That is right and fair, because it ensures that those who represent the relevant constituencies have a say on how the law is made and a block on it, but, crucially, they cannot make the law unless all UK MPs support it in a majority. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g220.1
The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I think this is covered in the Standing Order, but it may need further revision. The Standing Order makes provision for the Speaker to certify that where a matter is about to be devolved, it has already been devolved and therefore in the legislation should require an English vote. It therefore follows logically that if a matter is about to be undevolved, because the relevant devolved Assembly cannot come to a decision, the Speaker ought to certify differently. It may be that the Standing Order needs an amendment to clarify that, but it is certainly within the spirit of the Standing Order as currently written. It is ensuring an equality of all Members of Parliament because no legislation can pass without a majority in this House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g220.3
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down the path of the elected Scottish peers, which there used to be in the other place, but that is notrelevant to this debate, which is on the process within the House of Commons and its Standing Orders. He does, however, bring me neatly on to why I think it is so crucial that this is done through Standing Orders, not through legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g220.5
That is of the greatest importance. The English must recognise that if we want the Union to maintain, we must not require exact parity. The United Kingdom is 85% English, and the English demanding exact parity is the way to destroy the Union. The English, in this context, have to be generous. It is important that we remember that; otherwise we destroy the Union that we are seeking to protect. That is why Standing Orders are important—they can be reversed. If the Opposition Members had a majority, whatever form of coalition it took, they could suspend Standing Orders on a single vote to proceed with the business they want—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is shaking his finger at me and getting frightfully exercised, but we see Standing Orders suspended on a regular basis. Standing Orders have been suspended to rush through Bills in a single day, and they are suspended almost weekly on minor matters so that deferred Divisions do not take place. Standing Orders are not constitutional holy writ; they are a mild way of making an alteration.We must avoid the temptation of taking this process towards an English Parliament. An English Parliament would usurp the United Kingdom Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) shouts, “Why?” She might want it, because it would create the division of the United Kingdom that the SNP seeks. Those of us who are English and Unionists must be careful of the siren voice of that exact equality—that exact parity—that might be sought by those who favour independence in Scotland. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g221.1
Mr Speaker wanted me to do eight minutes. I am already over so I must desist. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g221.3
On that aspect, the hon. Lady is missing the point. If there were a majority in both Houses for a specific piece of legislation, there would be a majority in the House to suspend Standing Orders. That is crucial in ensuring that a Government that is dependent on non-English votes can get its business through. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g205.0
The issue of Standing Orders is absolutely at the heart of the matter. The proposals make no suggestion of entrenchment of Standing Orders and no requirement of a special majority to suspend them. The House regularly suspends Standing Orders in particular circumstances—to speed up the passing of a Bill, to change the sitting hours or whatever it may be. The flexibility of Standing Orders ought to be a reassurance to the Labour party. If a future Labour Government are dependent on Scottish votes, they will be able to get their business through the House because they can suspend Standing Orders. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g205.2
I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the key point about this being done through Standing Orders, which is that Standing Orders can be suspended by the House in a specific instance or permanently, and that therefore the sovereignty of this House remains unaffected. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-07b.185.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g190.0
The truth is that that did lead to a wonderful outpouring of monarchical fervour from Scotland. That is to be commended. I am just a bit worried that the former leader of the Scottish National party is not as supportive of the monarchy as his successor. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g94.0
The hon. Gentleman has been more helpful to me than he may have realised. I think that the symbolic importance of this division is that it is symbolic of independence for Scotland rather than further devolution. I think that the indivisibility of the Crown in one nation is such that the Crown Estate ought not to be divided. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g80.5
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who I think is absolutely spot on. The indivisibility of the Crown within the United Kingdom is central to the Unionist case, and I think that if a Unionist Government are willing to divide the Crown, that is a very dangerous step. I would rather give the Scottish Parliament other powers—some of which are the subject of other amendments—than give it this very important power relating to the Crown, which, as has already been pointed out, has been indivisible for longer than the Parliaments have been united. It brought the two countries together, and that was then established firmly in law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g81.2
Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g81.4
My assumption is that they were devolved to the Government of the Republic of Ireland, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when one is abolishing the monarchy. If SNP Members were, in fact, closet republicans—which, given the other arguments that we have heard recently, I do not think they are—it would be perfectly rational for them to argue that the estate should be confiscated from the Crown and should go to an independent Scotland. However, that is not the argument that we are having today. Today, there seems to be broad acceptance in the House that the monarchy should remain part of the Scottish settlement—as well as the settlement for the rest of the United Kingdom—come what may, even if Scotland were to become independent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g81.6
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman —I was about to say “my hon. Friend”—is bold enough. What he should say, and what I, in logic, would be bound to accept, is that if that is to be determined by one Government, it could be argued that it should be determined only by the Scottish Government in relation to the whole Crown Estate. However, that would not be my argument. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g82.0
I am terribly sorry to say that we do not have an exact precedent. We have exactly the wrong precedent, and the right hon. Gentleman is making my argument: we should be very nervous of doing this because it would lead inexorably to a division between the state—we divide the Crown, and we divide the state. There we are: I am finding a good deal of agreement between my position and that of SNP Members, but neither of us is in perfect harmony with those on the Treasury Bench, who seem to want to put this forward with the view that it does not risk a fundamental division in the Crown. That is what worries me; it is why I think it is a mistake, and why I have tabled a number of amendments that I hope will meet with universal approbation. Indeed, I am very surprised that many SNP Members, after all their protestations of loyalty to the Crown following the suggestion that the sovereign grant might lose a bit of money, did not add their names to my amendments. I was hoping for that, but I hoped in vain.I would like to explain my amendments in reverse order, because amendment 127 is perhaps the key one. It states“The scheme must not include any permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g82.2
No, all my amendment is seeking to do is ensure that at the beginning of a new reign the Crown Estates are returned entire. It is about a“permanent alienation of the rights of the Crown.”That does not mean that one property may not be sold for another property; it means that the assets must be retained within a single pool and that they must not be disposed of without receiving counter-value in return. It is a permanent alienation of the rights, not of specific properties, which is why I phrased it this way, rather than relating it to specific properties or the seashore or any of the other elements of the Crown Estate. It is about preserving entire that which does not belong to this House to give away. It would be wrong of this House to exceed its authority and risk giving away something that is not its.I accept that it is highly unlikely that a future sovereign will exercise his right to have the Crown Estates returned to him, but the fact that it is unlikely does not mean that we should abandon property rights lightly.Amendment 126 addresses the pro rata payments under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. I was delighted that the First Minister of Scotland was clear that she did not wish to see any reduction in the Sovereign Grant Act. The Crown estates are 3.9% funded from Scotland; that is the percentage of income that comes from the Scottish Crown estates. That feeds through to the 15% that is received by the sovereign to pay their expenses. This would merely provide a protection for that. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g82.4
No, I do not agree. I enjoyed participated in the Sovereign Grant Act debates, when I thought Her Majesty ought to get rather more than the measly 15% that was being proposed. It is based on the income of the Crown Estates and it is conceivable that if the Crown Estates were managed in a less than efficient way, the total amount raised would be reduced and therefore the grant from the Consolidated Fund would be reduced in a pro rata manner. This amendment is putting in a protection. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g83.1
The Crown Estate was a brilliant way of settling the issue. It is of course just one way, and we have tried other methods, but the civil list, for instance, ended up failing as a method of paying for the Crown because of inflation. It had historically been set for the lifetime of a sovereign and was done once in a reign, but inflation bit into that and the amount granted to the Queen in 1952 became so small 20 years into her reign that it needed to be increased. The great advantage of the Sovereign Grant Act is that it took the detailed petty politics out of ensuring we have a monarchy that is funded to do what we want our monarchy to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g83.3
Hon. Members may have got the impression that I am a monarchist; I think there are few things more important in this nation than the monarchical system that we have. None the less I am consistent in my capitalist views; I do not want even my sovereign to benefit from subsidies that are paid by the Governmentand fall on the backs of hard-pressed people in North East Somerset who cannot afford their energy bills. I am not that much of a monarchist. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g83.5
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is more of a monarchist than I am. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g84.1
One has to be careful of onshore wind turbines if one is at risk of losing one’s head; I believe the heads of bats get regularly cut off by the turbines.Subsidies are a different point, but I would certainly not want the sovereign grant to benefit from state subsidies. I think that is a very bad method of funding almost anything. The Government picking winners tends not to work and tends to increase costs.Amendment 126 would merely ensure that the pro rata amount would remain the same, and amendment 125 would mean the scheme agreed by the Treasury and the Scottish Parliament could not be altered to the disadvantage of the Sovereign Grant Act.As I have said, the Sovereign Grant Act is an extraordinarily good way of funding the monarchy. It means Her Majesty is the highest marginal tax rate payer in the country. The Queen pays a tax rate of 85% whereas nobody else pays more than 45%. The Crown Estates are taken from the Queen at the beginning of the reign and the revenue is then taken to the Government. So the Queen subsidises her own Government throughout her reign. That is not an unreasonable situation, but the Sovereign Grant Act returns it, and that should be protected in any development of devolution. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g84.3
I wish Doris Day many happy returns, albeit somewhat belatedly, but the hon. Gentleman is not right that all these Scottish taxpayers have paid more tax for 31 years, because some—very distinguished—SNP Members of Parliament are not 31 years old, so certainly have not been paying tax for that long. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g84.5
I think that that is a terrible Jacobean, rather than Jacobite suggestion. Although this is not immediately relevant to the debate, I do not think the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at the royal finances. Her Majesty should be allowed some privacy on that, but that is a side issue.I want to conclude on the fundamental principle: the clause is a move towards independence. It is rightly welcomed by the SNP, but it should be resisted by Unionists. It divides the Crown, which should not and cannot be divided; it is fundamentally indivisible. I have tabled amendments to protect the revenue for the Crown because there was a genuine outpouring of royalist fervour from Scotland, and in particular from the SNP, after it was suggested that that source of revenue was being attacked. It is better to put that into the Bill than rely on generalised assurances of goodwill and good faith.The other point is that I want to protect that which is not ours to give away. It is important that it is held together as one Crown Estate for the beginning of each new reign, rather than being cut up. If Scotland becomes independent, all that is different, but we should not pave the way for independence by cutting up the Crown. I think the measure was put in as something that is relatively easy to do. There are many more important areas that would give more real power to the Scottish Parliament that the Government and the Smith commission did not hand over, such as full fiscal autonomy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) proposed. The Crown Estate seems to be one of those baubles that can be passed around, but symbolically, whatever else it is, it is not a bauble. It is essential to our understanding of the nation: one nation, one Crown. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g85.0
Thank you, Mr Crausby—[Interruption.] I did not hear that interruption by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), which is always a great loss because his interventions are some of the most amusing that we ever hear. On this occasion, however, I am going to disagree with him. I do not like clause 31 at all; I think it is fundamentally misconceived.I have tabled a number of amendments, which I hope will improve it—if it is possible to make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.Let me start by explaining why I do not like the clause in principle. I think there is a danger that it is attempting to give away something that does not actually belong to the state. The Crown Estates belong to the sovereign and are given in trust to the Government at the beginning of every reign. This started at the beginning of the reign of George III and has been recommitted by every monarch subsequently. However, the Crown Estates must return entire to a new sovereign at the beginning of a new reign. It is not possible—it is not right; it is not proper—for the Government to give away the Crown Estates or to put them in such a state that an incoming sovereign could not take them back in their entirety. I therefore have concerns about the underlying principle of clause 31 in that it is seeking to divide the Crown Estates, which ought not to be divisible because of the unity they are required to have at the beginning of each reign.I also do not like it symbolically because, although I am very sympathetic to the demands of the SNP for more government in Scotland and for more rights for the Scottish Parliament, I think the Crown is more important than the union of Parliaments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g77.4
It is an honour to give way to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g78.1
I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s characteristically helpful intervention. What was so wonderful about that bait was the outpouring of patriotic royal fervour that it elicited from my friends in the Scottish National party. I must confess that I was thrilled and surprised when a party that I had thought to have republican leanings turned out, to a man and woman, to contain some of the staunchest monarchists in the land. That is desperately reassuring— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g78.3
And it is, of course, an even greater honour to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g78.5
The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. He teased the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for being inconsistent, because four years ago he had been against the devolution of the Crown Estate and today he was in favour of it. Now he has objected to my being consistent, in that I opposed it four years ago and continue to oppose it today. Either the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right to have changed his mind, or I am right not to have changed mine. Both cannot be true. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g79.0
The problem with that view is that it does not respect the rights of property. The Crown is entitled to protection of the rights of property as much as—indeed, some might say more than—anyone else in this country. If even Her Majesty’s property, the property of the sovereign herself, is not sacrosanct and protected, but can be taken for the benefit of the people—whatever that means—no one’s land is safe. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g79.2
I find the concept of sovereignty coming from the people very attractive. I do not dispute the concept of sovereignty rising from the people to this Parliament, with our sovereign Lady the epitome of it, the symbol of it, the very pinnacle of our society and of our nation. Within that concept, however, all subjects, and Her Majesty herself, have rights of property, and those rights should not be arbitrarily taken away. It worries me that clause 31 is going in that direction in deciding that Parliament can allocate a property rightwithout having established that that property right belongs to Parliament, and that it is for Parliament to dispose of it in the first place. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g79.4
I am well aware of the difference of terminology in relation to Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I, the “English Queen”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g80.1
The Queen of England. The two were different, in a sense, and there is a conception of popular sovereignty in Scotland that may differ from that in England—although it is perfectly possible that the reference to “Mary Queen of Scots” may have been due to concern about having a woman as monarch, and to the fact that in earlier times people were happier to have a King of Scotland than to have a King of the Scots. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman might not be more in tune with the late John Knox and his “blast of the trumpet”. I myself am not sure that I want that particular trumpet to be blown, because I think that it is a trumpet that sounds a rather wrong note. For once I am sounding more modern than the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar! I think that the issue of property rights is fundamental, and I also think that the Crown is indivisible. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-07-06b.62.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g80.3
The hon. Gentleman seems to be setting out the most attractive form of tax competition. If Scotland gets rid of air passenger duty, there will be real pressure on the Chancellor to abolish it for the rest of the United Kingdom, and the whole economy will grow. It is marvellous to see the whole House moving in such a right-wing direction in its economic debates. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-29b.1262.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1270.4
Following the brouhaha over the Crown Estate, the Scotland Bill and the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate to allow our friends in the Scottish National party to reaffirm their loyalty to our and their sovereign? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-25a.1054.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1062.0
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the target-based culture of the left actually encourages dependency and makes people stay in poverty because that is the right incentive for them, and that his policies are offering a new opportunity, which is transforming people’s lives? He deserves the full support of the House and the country. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-25a.1037.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1043.3
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to allow me to curry favour with youth, which I am always aiming to do. I just wonder whether he might be a convert to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, because on the argument we heard earlier, that would mean that they did not need to come here to have the Youth Parliament. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.838.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g841.0
I was intrigued by the idea that people should be able to come here and debate if they are not allowed to stand for Parliament. Were that argument to be taken further, I wonder whether we would allow criminals to come here, or Members of the House of Lords. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.838.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g842.1
Will my hon. Friend give way before he finishes? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.838.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g844.0
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought I should assure him that he is not testing the patience of the House; the House is thoroughly enjoying his speech. He may not know that while he has been speaking the only people he has been inconveniencing are the Executive, because Back Benchers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are now on a one-line Whip. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.838.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g844.2
The speech by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is tremendously important and gets to the heart of one of the issues we have with the common agricultural policy, although, not surprisingly, I look at it in a different way from the question of socialism and land holdings that the SNP is going for.The issue, as has been discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee, is that over the years our farmers have increasingly become so efficient and large thatthere has been a good deal of consolidation. That applies very much in my constituency among dairy farmers. The number of dairy farms has reduced significantly and they are bigger farms proportionately, but European subsidies tend to go to smaller farms disproportionately. Therefore, we find that British farmers are disadvantaged. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if, under a system of farming subsidies and a competitive framework, that means that people are getting handouts from the European Union, British farmers—farmers in the United Kingdom—do not get the equivalent subsidies to farmers on the continent, they are disadvantaged because their cost base is automatically higher and their profitability is reduced. Therefore, when we are arguing for careful consideration, overview and oversight of expenditure in the European Union, and reductions in the common agricultural policy, we have to ensure that the cuts are made in a way that is fair to the UK farmer. Even if our end objective is the entire elimination of agricultural subsidies, it must be done in a way— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.760.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g791.2
I am very sympathetic to farmers and I ought to declare an interest as I have a little land in Somerset, although sadly not a great deal and I do not farm directly. If I did, I would certainly count as a very, very small farmer. In the past a slice has been taken from the biggest receivers of European subsidies, so the farms that have been the most consolidated and efficient lose subsidies at a faster rate than other farms. I think that protection is already in place— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.760.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g792.1
Being more traditional, I prefer a minimum per acre, but otherwise I am broadly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is not right to look at the issue purely in terms of the landowner, because that discourages consolidation. As Conservatives, we are in favour of efficiency in all industries, but the subsidy system across Europe not only disadvantages our farmers, but discourages consolidation and efficiency. That cannot be the right approach. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.760.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g792.3
There are great advantages to having small, family owned farms, but we need an efficient agricultural system that provides the food and producethe country needs. I do not think one should be unduly sentimental for agriculture against other industries. As a lover of the countryside and of our rural traditions, I am tempted to fall in line with the hon. Gentleman, who represents Glenrothes. The constituency was called Central Fife when I stood there—unsuccessfully, just for the record. However, although I am sympathetic to his point, I think it is important to have efficient agriculture first when spending other hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. It ought not to be entirely about sentimentality. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.760.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g792.5
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-23a.760.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g784.1
That is a very important point, which may be worth discussing when we debate other amendments. Ultimately, the Government must accept the will of the people—that is what we all believe in, and that is why we are all here—but they must deal with that fairly.There is also the question of where the Government should proceed from here. There seems to be a wide consensus that paragraph 15 of schedule 1 is deeply unsatisfactory, and that the removal of the issue of purdah was simply a mistake. I am willing to trust the Government, so I accept that it was an honest mistake, and not a mistake that was made in an attempt to fiddle the referendum result. I believe that partly because I am a simple fellow who is very trusting of the Government, but also because trying to fiddle the result will damage whichever side wishes to do it.The British electorate will not have the wool pulled over their eyes. If little bits of legislation are squirreled away into the Bill to make things easier for one side or the other, those of us who are on the other side will campaign on that basis. We will say, “Look, we need to act against this, because people are trying to fiddle us over what is happening.” There is a wonderfully contrary spirit among the British people, who will not be cowed by those who try to trick them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g262.1
I do not know too much about ferreting, or indeed about counsel’s opinion, but my hon. Friend knows only too well that explanatory notes are anything but explanatory. They consist of a complicated a set of notes which, when read carefully in conjunction with a Bill, can shed some light, but I do not think that anyone expects them to be like the Book of Revelation, revealing everything that one could possibly want to know about a Bill. They require Members of Parliament to look diligently at what underlies them.The Government must examine clause 3 very carefully. They have given undertakings to do so over the next few months, but they need to come back with something that is just as rigorous as what is there already. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g262.3
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and that point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. An uncharacteristically weak argument must have been given to the Minister for Europe to read out—he could not have made so poor an argument himself—when he said that if the negotiations have finished it would be very difficult for the Government not to be able to explain them immediately before the election. It cannot be that we will have the referendum two weeks after the negotiations have been concluded. That would be preposterous. There has to be a considerable period of time beforehand, so that what has happened can be understood, debated and campaigned upon. That must mean a period of a minimum of 28 days, as currently set out, but realistically we are going to need three months at the end of the negotiations before we can move straight to the referendum. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g263.1
I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I think the Government need to be thinking along those lines. I am going to support the Government this evening; I am not going to vote with my friends in the SNP on this occasion, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which is more of a break with the habits of a lifetime. There is an important “but”, and I think other hon. Members on the Government Benches share my view: because the Government have made a mistake at this stage, they now need to come back with something better than we would have needed had they not made this mistake. Therefore, the Government’s position of purdah must be a stricter one than they might have been able to get away with had they simply amended the existing restrictions rather than taking them all away and having a completely clean base from which they could have done anything. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g263.3
I was making a slightly different point. I was saying that it is going to need to be tougher than the Government would have got away with had they come through with a limited change at an earlierstage. The Government said they would scrap the whole of section 125, and there is now suspicion that there was an ulterior motive for that. To allay that suspicion, the Government have to be very specific about the exemptions they want. It might be an exemption to vote in the Council of Ministers, and that would not be unreasonable, but would I give them an exemption to announce from the hilltops that they had lots of money from the EU to build a new factory in a key swing area of the country? No, I would not; I would think that would be about fiddling the result, if they wanted a yes. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g263.5
My hon. Friend is right and will no doubt recall the 1970 general election when Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister, was not allowed to reveal the trade figures that came out immediately after the general election even though he knew them and they would have been very helpful to him. So there have been cases in which Prime Ministers were prohibited from making announcements on the basis of purdah, and I think it would be quite right to follow them in the context of a European referendum.It was pointed out earlier that the reason the Government are so worried about this is part of the problem—namely, that the EU is involved in so many aspects of our lives that what they are restricted from doing will be much broader than it would be for a normal referendum. That makes it all the more important that this purdah is strictly observed.We are arguing about whether the situation in which our lives are organised by the EU should remain or whether we should do something different. If, in the month or six weeks before the referendum, popular announcements about the EU were made but unpopular ones were held back—or vice versa—that would be completely improper. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g264.1
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The activities of the European Commission come to a grinding halt for at least the whole of August. Perhaps that is the answer to another question—one that I was less exercised about—on the matter of the date. If we were to hold the referendum in the first week of September, the EU would have been shut down throughout August and there would be no great problem with purdah.I urge the Government to come back with something pretty serious on this. They cannot get away with most of what they want; this needs to be a thorough purdah. I do not know whether they will do this today, but it is open to them—as a sign of goodwill and reassurance—notto proceed with the proposal that schedule 1 be the first schedule to the Bill. Instead, they could bring forward a new schedule to deal with this problem on Report. That would leave everyone content, and there would be no great opposition or need to press amendments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g264.3
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in today’s debate, Mr Howarth, and to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), as the Minister responding. The constitution is always in safe hands when it is in the hands of Somerset, so it is reassuring that he is here to respond.I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said about amendment 10, on EU funding, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and to which I have added my name. The appearance of fairness within the referendum is at the heart of what the Government must try to do. The Government, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. It would be wrong if there was any feeling that the referendum was being held improperly, that undue pressure was being brought to bear, or that funding was directed to one side rather than the other—I say that as somebody who supports the Government’s position—but it would be most wrong if British taxpayers’ money funnelled by the European Union ended up being used to campaign for us to remain subject to the European Union. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g258.1
It is a delight to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g258.3
The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to listen to an excellent debate on that very subject yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I think I would be in trouble if I went through the question of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland in relation to amendment 10 to the European Union Referendum Bill, so I want to stick to the subject at hand.The European Union has a budget for this. Indeed, we passed a Bill in 2013 that allows for the European Union to engage in political activity and the promotion of the cause and objectives of the European Union. That money flows to institutions within the United Kingdom and that money comes with strings attached. It is money that is given on the basis that the institutions receiving that money support the objectives of the European Union. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g258.5
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be against the conditions of receipt of that money to use the money to campaign for a member state to leave the European Union.Some very influential bodies in this country receive money from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said that the CBI receives money from the European Union. We know that the CBI is in part funded by Europe. It is therefore under an obligation either to return that money or to support the objectives of the European Union. When the director-general of the BBC came before the European Scrutiny Committee, he was asked about the money the BBC received from the European Union and the strings that that may have attached. Even the most impartial and highly regarded bodies in our establishment receive money from the European Union, and they take on certain obligations in return.My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) made a very good point about what happens to farmers in receipt of subsidies that have come from the European Union. Are they then prohibited from giving money to the Conservative party to campaign in the referendum? No, of course not. He may well be right that the amendment needs improving to ensure that people are not captured by mistake. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g259.1
I do indeed. I have no idea whether the NFU receives any money from the European Union. If it did, it would be under an obligation to support the objectives of the European Union.It is a very insidious aspect of how the EU operates. It is why it likes to put its stars up everywhere: to show us what wonderful things Mother Europe is doing to help us and enforcing compliance with its view of the world. We want to make sure that our referendum is held absolutely fairly, without that influence. In terms of that fairness, I want to come on to the debate on schedule 1 stand part. It is schedule 15, referred to inschedule 1 to this Bill, that comes to the issue of section 125, the exemption from which removes the whole purdah question for the Government.I have every confidence that the Prime Minister will lead the no campaign. He will come back and say that what is in the interests of this country, if the renegotiation is not exceptional, is that we leave. He has indicated that in speeches and I admire him for making his views so clear. When he does that, I do not want him to be helped by legerdemain. I do not want the no campaign to benefit from the Government being able to use all their resources to get me what I am likely to want in those circumstances. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) expects the reverse. He thinks, I happen to think naively, that the Government will come back and wish to campaign for a yes vote. He likewise does not wish to see them being able to use all the powers at the disposal of the Government to push for what they want.Those powers are considerable. The ability of the arms of central and local government to influence the media and public opinion and to use its PR resources, press officers and administrative and logistical machinery to help one side or the other is considerable. Whichever side of the argument one falls on, it must be right to hope that the referendum will be more than just a staging post in the discussion about Europe, and that it will help put our relationship with Europe on a firm footing that can last for decades rather than weeks. We do not want anyone on either side feeling that the result was so flawed, because of how it was carried out, that we need another referendum. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g259.3
No, we co-operate in far too many areas already. I have a lot of sympathy with the SNP’s position in many ways, because it is not entirely different from mine. I want my country, which I view as the UK, to govern herself, and SNP Members want a smaller part of the UK—Scotland, which they view as their country —to govern herself too. It puzzles me that, having got self-government, they want to hand it over to Brussels, but that is a question for them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g260.1
That is a moot point that was discussed at length during the Scottish referendum campaign and to which I had better not revert.I want to concentrate on the power, influence and resources of Governments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g260.3
No, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend. There are stages in this process. That is what the Bill and the Minister’s letter are trying to get at. The Government will have their renegotiation and then come back with a package saying it is a triumph, whatever is in the package. It might have three loaves and two fishes, or it might give us complete control of our own destiny—whichever it is, the Government will say it is a triumph. That will be the Government’s answer, and they can tell the electorate what they have managed to do. From then on, however, it will become a matter of straightforward politics whether someone believes the Government and agrees with what they have done. I approve of the adversarial system in this country. We do not develop our arguments and get to the answer we want by getting authoritative documents from the Government. Actually, such documents always contain a bias. It might not be obvious on first reading, but, reading through the detail, one will see the way the Government want people to go, and that will bolster the position they have set for themselves. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g261.0
I certainly see no impropriety in that. In the London mayoral campaigns, the views of all the candidates are circulated in a single booklet. That is not improper. Perhaps, however, I am more of a believer in capitalism, in respect of elections as well as the economic structures of the country. I believe that people should campaign for what they want, and should put their own arguments rather than thinking that they could be better put—or even well put—by a nominally independent third party, least of all the Government.Once the Government have reached a position in this regard, their circumstances are really no different from their circumstances just before a general election. Before a general election, the Government of course want to be re-elected and to carry on doing the great things that they feel they have done, but they are prohibited from using the organs of the state to promote themselves, because that is thought to be a fundamentally unfair way of dealing with the question that is immediately before the electorate.The referendum in Scotland is instructive in this context. There was a good deal of unhappiness among members of the SNP about the way in which some arms of Government behaved during the period immediatelybefore the referendum. Much though I welcomed the result of that referendum, and much though I thought it was a result to be desired, I think that the Government’s actions in putting their own view at a point that was too close to the deadline was damaging to a cause in which I believe. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g261.2
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I find myself in a surprising degree of agreement with what he is saying, but there is a chance that the sinner repenteth, because similar amendments may come forth on Report. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.235.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g245.0
My right hon. Friend said that the Government may not be able to give their view on the outcomes of the renegotiation. Surely that cannot be true. It cannot be the case that the renegotiation will only be finished within the purdah period. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.186.7&s=speaker%3A24926#g234.0
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.186.7&s=speaker%3A24926#g216.0
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-15b.25.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g63.2
The hon. Gentleman said that Government Members are not in favour of tax competition, but I am thoroughly in favour of tax competition. It would be an excellent idea for both Scotland and Northern Ireland to have control of their corporation tax, because I think they would suddenly discover the virtues of the Laffer curve and reduce taxes quite sharply. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-15b.25.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g56.4
I agree with all the wonderful things my hon. Friend has been saying about Scotland, which are so clearly and self-evidently true. The point I wastrying to make is that if a country has fiscal autonomy and issues debt in a currency other than its own, it may well get squeezed in the way seen not only in Greece, but in Italy and Spain, and in countries across Asia during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. For a country to have fiscal autonomy without its own currency is a recipe for economic failure. To go back historically, the same was true of the gold standard in the 1930s. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-15b.25.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g35.2
Those of us who have a Eurosceptic point of view, as my hon. Friend does, have always been very cautious about fiscal autonomy without monetary autonomy. Would his amendment also enable the Scottish Parliament to have monetary autonomy? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-15b.25.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g31.4
It is a wonderful coincidence—a fortuitous concatenation of circumstances—that I am able to congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), because I stood as the Conservative candidate in Central Fife in 1997, and I know that what he says is true: it is a constituency of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind to me. As hon. Members may have noticed, I am quite English—I come from Somerset. They could not have been more kindly to a young Conservative who they were pretty sure had no chance of winning. When the hon. Gentleman was singing the virtues of his constituents, I know he spoke the truth.I now know—I did not know before—that, when I enjoy a glass of Pimm’s during the course of the summer, which I hope to do on occasion, it was made in Glenrothes. It is a wonderful constituency and it has a brilliant representative. I just hope the hon. Gentleman becomes a Conservative one day—the only way we will get a Conservative in Glenrothes is if somebody crosses the Floor.We have had a cornucopia of excellent maiden speeches today. Sticking with the Scottish National party theme, the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) made his maiden speech from the Front Bench. I do not know who the last Opposition spokesman to do that was, but I know that the last Minister to do that was Harold Wilson, who made his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in 1945. The hon. Gentleman is in very fine company, and made a very fine speech, with detailed points on the European Union, which I look forward to cross-examining closely in further debates.The hon. Gentleman also revealed the extraordinary generosity of benefits in Scotland when he told us that he is eligible for a bus pass. Clearly, the age at which people get bus passes in Scotland is much lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will not go on to the Barnett formula and how come bus passes for such relative youths are paid for.It was a particular joy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) make his maiden speech. He comes from a most distinguished parliamentary family—his uncle was the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster—but I am very reassured that he will claim the high ground for parliamentarians against paternal judges. Although paternalism is in many ways a very good thing, the supremacy of the House must be reasserted, even in the Tugendhat family.I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks he is going to test Hansard. He will soon come to know that there is no test he can set Hansard that they do not manage to pass with flying colours. However fast the bowling or however good the batting—to go back to the Tonbridge theme of M. C. Cowdrey—Hansard always catch the ball or take the wicket, depending which side they are on.My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) took us on a charabanc tour of her constituency. I have a slight concern—she referred to the “first” constituent she reversed into. I wait for her further speeches and interventions in transport matters, or perhaps health matters, to discover how many of the hospitals locally have been filled with injured constituents. What a tribute it is to her electability that, despite her mowing down constituents right, left and centre, she has still been returned triumphantly. Even better, when she arrives at the House, she models herself on George III. It may come as a surprise to her, but I was listening to her opening paragraphs, and she said she gloried in the name of Briton. That was exactly what George III said—exactly his sentiments. How nice it is to have his late majesty at least alluded to in this Chamber.I must not speak for too long, and after these pourparlers I must get round to talking about the European Union, because hon. Members may know that my favourite activity on a quiet Thursday afternoon is making speeches on the European Union. If the House is not debating it, I do it at home and make members of my family listen to my views on it.Of course, we have to start with the basics. There is a fundamental failing in the Bill in its very title, because it refers to “own resources”. It is not “own resources”; it is our money. It is British taxpayers’ money. It is not some fantastic European lottery win that has suddenly been found, and it is not like the gold that the kings of Spain found in Latin America of old. It is not made-up money; it is real money earned by British taxpayers running to the tune of £14 billion a year.We have to be incredibly careful about how that money is spent and how willing we are to award it. We have already heard that the accounts have not been signed off for 20 years. One may think, “Well it may just be some minor error that means they have not managed to sign them off.” Actually, it is because they think that about 5% of expenditure has not been properly accounted for; roughly speaking, a third of our contribution is not properly spent, or they do not have the right receipts for it. This House has a duty, one of our most ancient duties, to ensure that the Government spend money properly and, when they give it away to international bodies, those international bodies also spend it properly. On whether it is spent properly, I will give the House a note on how the EU categorises spending given to overseas bodies.The EU, for the purpose of signing off the accounts, says that if it gives £1,000 to a United Nations project and the United Nations project is worth £10,000, and that of that £10,000 in the project £9,000 was stolen, it will maintain that 100% of the money it has given to the project has been correctly spent, because if a percentage correctly spent is equal to or greater than the EU’s contribution, it deems it entirely properly spent. So when the accounts are not being signed off because there is 5%, or just under, of fraud or dishonesty or error, the figure is actually understated. We must push on that continually to make sure our money is properly spent.There is a lesson for the Government in their success. In the previous Parliament, from time to time—although not as often as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—I did not do as I was asked to by the Whips. On one occasion, however, I was loyal. I was the proper sycophantic fellow that people hope I might be and I supported the Government. When the Labour party—in its wisdom, on this occasion—tabled a motion saying that the Government must come back with a reduction in the EU budget, I thought that that was impossible. I thought we were asking the Prime Minister to go and argue for something that simply could not be done, but he did it. He got a reduction in the EU budget which will feed through to a reduction in our gross contributions—a real achievement. This is the lesson for the Government: it was a real achievement because the Government were bold and ambitious, and willing to try something in the European Union that was thought bound to fail. We are coming to a renegotiation and what one hears so far about the width of that renegotiation is not encouraging. Let us hope the Government learn from where they have succeeded. The message to the Government as we consider the Bill must be:“Ask and ye shall be given. Seek and ye shall find”.When they try, they can achieve things people do not expect them to achieve.This brief Bill is actually at the heart of what Governments do. What we take from our constituents to spend must always be spent carefully. The £14 billion that we spend is essentially a reiteration of our overseas aid budget: it is money going from a rich country to a poor country. It is not going to subsidise the Germans, for example; it is going to the poor countries in the European Union. We are now looking at a total for overseas aid in the order of magnitude of £26 billion. We have a duty to make sure that that is spent correctly. We have a duty to try to reduce it if possible and the Government must be encouraged by their past successes. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-11c.1385.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1409.0
I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is right to use the net figure, or the gross figure after rebate, because with the net figure the spending that is netted off is spent according to the requirements of the European Union; it is not necessarily spent in the way that a British Government would wish to spend it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-11c.1385.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1394.0
Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), will the Minister explain whether there has been any change as a result of the recalculation of gross national income as the EuropeanUnion has moved from the European system of accounts known as ESA95 to the later ESA2010, which I believe includes more of the black market? Has that move had the effect of making our economy bigger? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-11c.1385.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1388.2
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that this own resources decision is based on ESA95, as the last one was, rather than on ESA2010, which has been adopted for other purposes. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-11c.1385.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1389.1
May I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her post? I also welcome the shadow Chancellor, although I think we rather miss the more rambunctious approach of his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) illustrated the fundamental investment fallacy of not selling things on the basis of an historic price. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the only reason the Opposition can take this foolish position is that clause IV may be out of their rulebook but it remains within their hearts? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-11c.1369.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1376.1
As a sign that Europe is open to reform and is willing to renegotiate, would it not be sensible for Her Majesty’s Government to help Switzerland enforce its referendum result, getting it out of the free movement of people, as a model for British renegotiation? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-09c.1025.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g1027.1
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the extremely important issue of a veto. An ordinary reading of clause 24(4) shows that it clearly says that “such agreement” is“not to be unreasonably withheld.”That means that it is not a veto and that it would be justiciable in front of the courts if an unreasonable decision were made by the Secretary of State. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-08b.916.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g948.6
Will my right hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-08b.916.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g926.2
Is not the lesson of the euro that fiscal autonomy needs to go with monetary autonomy, and that if Scotland has fiscal autonomy it must also have its own currency? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-08b.916.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g931.2
May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is a real pleasure to see such a distinguished member of the Procedure Committee looking after our affairs this evening.I really want to congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on his superb maiden speech. It was the ideal maiden speech, containing everything that a good maiden speech should have. It was serious minded, enormously respectful of the House of Commons, generous to his predecessor—against whom I imagine the hon. Gentleman had quite a good campaign to have won so successfully—while also having a little bit of steel that good maiden speeches need so that we know that he means business in this House. I congratulate him most sincerely on a brilliant speech, supported by so many of his compatriots and fellow Members of the Scottish National party. Looking at my own Benches, I fear it rather puts us to shame.Speaking as a parliamentarian, the Scottish Nationalists have shown us how to behave today. They have come here more smartly dressed than the Conservatives; they have sat through the debate in greater numbers than those of my own party; and they have even let the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) have his usual seat. Their good manners and respect for the House of Commons is something that those on the Government Benches will look forward to taking very seriously over the next five years, because those of us who are Unionists recognise that their right to be here is just as great as those of us from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. That will be an important part of how this Parliament develops.Let me turn to the Queen’s Speech. The Gracious Speech divides, I think, into two parts. There is the natural business of government—the important and urgent business of government, starting, of course, with the economy. What the coalition managed is beginning to yield considerable fruit. The latest monthly deficit figure was much ahead of forecasts, with a significant increase in tax revenues coming through. That is what it would have been reasonable to expect.Tax revenues are a lagging indicator of economic performance, and the fact that they are now coming through more quickly probably means that the deficitwill decline faster than it is currently forecast to do. That will give us a strong background ensuring that we can live within our means, and that the legislation to prohibit an increase in national insurance, income tax or value-added tax will be a type of legislation to which we can commit ourselves very easily. Nothing particularly difficult will be involved, because, in my view, the revenues have now been boosted, but also because any increase in VAT would probably reduce the tax take for the Government. It is already clear that businesses reaching the VAT threshold are deciding not to grow and not to take on extra customers, because as soon as they do, their costs will become 20% higher. I think that 20% is as high as VAT can reasonably be.We saw that the 50p income tax rate raised less money than the 45p rate is raising now, and we all know the lesson of the Laffer curve: higher rates do not produce more income for the Exchequer. When we consider national insurance and income tax together, we see that the Government are, among other things, taking lower earners out of tax. If those people were put back into tax, they would merely have to be paid more in benefits, thus increasing the deficit.On that side of things—the fiscal, or tax, side of things—the Queen’s Speech is admirable. Given that it is a continuation of the work done by the coalition, I suppose that it would be mean-minded not to pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, who, although now reduced in number, played an important part in that work. I think that the nation should be grateful for the big decision that they made in 2010, at considerable cost to their party’s fortunes, to ensure that the country could get out of the mess that had been left.Beyond that, however, there are the constitutional matters, which, to my mind, are of a piece, whether they concern English votes for English issues, more devolution, the European referendum or human rights. I say that because, between 1997 and 2010, the Government started a whole process of constitutional reform which they did not complete or round off. One example is devolution. It began in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but nothing was done for England. That is because it is very complicated to come up with a solution for England that meets the requirements of constitutional propriety, while also recognising that England contains 85% of the population. If England demands exact parity with Scotland, we shall probably have broken up the United Kingdom anyway. If the English want the Union, the onus is on them to recognise that, and to be generous to the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.That is why I support—although I note that there is opposition to it—the use of Standing Orders at some point during the progress of a Bill to allow English votes. Standing Orders are easy to suspend. A Standing Order could be suspended if, for example, a future Government were dependent on Scottish votes for their continuation. There might be a political cost, but the Government of the country could continue, and Members of Parliament from Scotland would remain exactly the same Members of Parliament. It would be like an extension of a Grand Committee. There would be an issue in which some Members of Parliament were not involved, but ultimately it would once more be in the power of the whole House to decide on it.That is a much more flexible system than a legislative system that would create a Parliament within a Parliament. A legislative system would mean that the franchisewould change, and the ability of MPs from other countries in the Union to vote on issues would be permanently reduced, whereas a Standing Order is essentially a self-denying ordinance that could be overturned for a single vote. Standing Orders are suspended fairly routinely when it suits the Government for business to run a bit late, or when they want Second and Third Readings to take place on the same day. That cannot be done with legislation. Standing Orders are not a means of playing some wretched trick on Scottish MPs, but a way of ensuring that the system in the House of Commons can work and can be fluid. However, I should prefer that to be a fairly limited aspect of our law-making, involving issues that are so clearly and unequivocally English—or English and Welsh—that no reasonable person would think otherwise. I do not want the standing of individual Members to be determined by the nation from which they come.The other issues that we face—the European issues—stem, in a way, from the same source. They involve a loss of power from the House of Commons to the continent and to continental courts, or even to judges in our own country. I worry about that, not because I think that out of nowhere has come a common sovereignty that we must fight to the death to protect, but because we hold that sovereignty in trust for our electors, and we must and ought to have returned it to them every five years. Instead, we have given it away to judges in Strasbourg, and to some of our own judges across the road in the Middlesex Guildhall. That has made it easy for legislation to be overturned, and hard for it to be reinstated by the House of Commons.I do not deny that there are some very clever judges. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the former Solicitor General, said that there were judges who understood the law better than us mere politicians, and that may well be true. Nevertheless, we make the law, on behalf of our constituents, for the judges to interpret, and if we do not like the judges’ interpretation, it is for us to change the law. If we give away that power so that the judges become the final arbiter, we shall have given away something that does not actually belong to us, but belongs to our electors and to the British people.The reform that I want is a reform that reasserts the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, not as an end in itself, but because it supports democracy. That is where I think all the constitutional issues become involved. They are about respecting the will of the people, including the will of Scottish people to have more devolution, which I cannot deny, however much I want to. I stood in Scotland once; I got 9% of the vote. I did at least hold my deposit in Glenrothes, which is a fine town, and I very much enjoyed the experience. It is that level of democracy that we need to retain, be it in respect of devolution, Europe, or human rights. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-05-27b.34.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g111.0
On the point about entrenchment, my right hon. Friend referred to Magna Carta. Three clauses of Magna Carta still remain the law today, 800 years later. Entrenchment is not needed for the law to survive if it is good law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-05-27b.34.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g102.0
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If we go back to the Bradlaugh case, it is well established that this House is entitled to limit the voting rights of individual Members. The House refused to let Bradlaugh take the Oath, and it was upheld by the courts that that could not be interfered with outside this Chamber, and that is in our Bill of Rights. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-05-27b.34.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g66.3
I beg to move, That the right hon. John Simon Bercow do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.May I add my congratulations to you, Sir Gerald, on becoming Father of the House in succession to the much loved and highly regarded Sir Peter Tapsell? It is indeed a tribute to your long service to this nation that you now take the Chair of our proceedings.It has been the habit of this House to continue with a Speaker who wishes to continue to serve, and that is for very important constitutional reasons. The Speaker is the champion of the House of Commons against all-comers—the champion of the Commons against the Lords and sometimes against the judges, but perhapsmost particularly against the Executive. The historians here will know that some seven Speakers lost their heads for championing the Commons against the Executive—something that we hope is no longer necessary.The connection between the Speaker and the Commons protects us and the rights of this House. If we were to be light in changing our Speaker, we would find that the Speaker spent the whole time paying regard to what the Front Bench on one side or the other were thinking as to how he should rule, lest he should not continue in office after a general election. The last time that happened was in 1835, when Charles Manners-Sutton was booted out by the Whigs for being too much of a Tory. I am glad to say that there are not very many Whigs left to behave in that way.I want to move on from the general constitutional principle to the right hon. Member for Buckingham and why I think he is so well suited to continue as Speaker. A Speaker has to have a good knowledge of “Erskine May”. Some new, show-off Back Benchers may think that they know a bit about “Erskine May”. I occasionally thought that in the previous Parliament and went to the Speaker with some clever procedural strategy. He, with the wise advice of the Clerks, always knew it better, and that is essential to keeping order in this place.A good Speaker must also be prompt with business. Who has not heard him say, “Short questions and short answers.”? That is the mantra of Question Time—[Interruption.] And speeches, though I quite like long speeches. [Laughter.] That has got our business through at Question Time and on statements, but the Speaker has also ensured that the Commons debated what it wanted to debate. The rise in the number of urgent questions has been hugely important in holding the Government to account, as has the selection of amendments on Report.The Speaker also has the most phenomenal knowledge of Members, and the new Members will soon find that Mr Speaker knows not only their names but their date of birth and probably their weight when they were born—and will reveal all this when they rise to speak, for the entertainment of the rest of the House.My right hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has a reputation as a moderniser—a word that I use with some caution. In spite of my prejudices, it is important that this House looks beyond its own confines to the country at large. What he has done in terms of education has been very important—bringing school- children into this place and making it more available. But there is some hope—I hope that I am not being indiscreet in telling the House—because his son Oliver took one look at a portrait of the Speaker that was being unveiled and asked, “Daddy, why aren’t you wearing a wig?” Mr Speaker gave an answer that had it come from a Minister would not have been deemed satisfactory, so young Oliver said, “I think you should wear a wig, Daddy.” I am with Mr Speaker’s son on this issue, but I think my chances of success are limited.The key virtue of the right hon. Gentleman is that he is impartial in this House, but he is a partisan for the House of Commons. In here, we are all equal and judged by him equally and fairly, but outside he defends our rights, our traditions and our liberties, and that is how it should be.Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1A), That John Bercow do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.Question agreed to.Sir Gerald Kaufman left the Chair,and John Bercow was conducted to the Chair by Sir Peter Bottomley and Valerie Vaz. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-05-18a.1.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g1.5
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is such widespread demand for an increase in the time available, would it be permissible to suggest, under Standing Order 24, an emergency debate on the subject? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-26b.1611.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1628.1
My right hon. Friend is one of the most revered and admired figures within the Conservative party. He is a figure who has made his reputation by being a great parliamentarian. Throughout the years when he was leader, we were all cheered by his success at the Dispatch against Mr Blair. Does he therefore appreciate the deep sadness that many of us feel that his career should end with his name being put to a bit of parliamentary jiggery-pokery that has come about, representing grudges that some people have against Mr Speaker, and that this is deeply unfortunate? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-26b.1600.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1604.2
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him “vindictive” etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly. [Interruption.] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-26b.1600.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1607.5
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who speaks such sense on these matters. It was also interesting to hear about his holiday plans for the summer, and I hope that he will tell us more about them in future debates.I turn immediately to the wording of the motion. Her Majesty’s Government like to say all the right things and do all the wrong ones. Let us look at the end of the motion, which proposes that the House“welcomes the Government’s commitment to increasing the power of national parliaments in EU decision-making by strengthening and, where possible, enhancing current provisions.”It sounds splendid that we in the national Parliaments should have an increased role and that there should be proper scrutiny within this House. But let us look further into the Order Paper, where we find the European business and the debates set down to take place on the Floor of the House. We had one yesterday. How generous of Her Majesty’s Government to allow us, after months of delay, to debate an issue that had been suggested for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee!Turning to the future European business, however, we see that no time or date has been set for the first debate in the list, on the free movement of EU citizens, despite its having being asked for more than a year ago. Debate No. 2 would be on strategic guidelines for EU justice and home affairs to 2020. Debate No. 3— [Interruption.] Bless you! Debate No. 3 would be on the rule of law in EU member states. Debate No. 4 should be on ports, a highly controversial matter awaiting the discussion that was suspended in the Committee because the Government had not got their act together. No. 5 is the topic that we are discussing now. No. 6 should cover the EU budget 2014, which is not a minor matter. Indeed, it is rather important. When we discuss our own Budget, we have four days of debate on it, yet we arenot even given 90 minutes for the EU budget. No. 7 on the list is the EU charter of fundamental rights. So there are six further debates that we have not been given, yet today we are debating the Government’s wonderful commitment to increasing parliamentary scrutiny of European matters.There is a saying that fine words butter no parsnips. We get a lot of fine words from Her Majesty’s Government but the parsnips remain distinctly unbuttered, and as I represent a dairying constituency, I think it is about time we had some butter and got the debates that the European Scrutiny Committee has been asking for. There is a considerable lack of wisdom in this approach—this contumely towards the House. These debates take place in an atmosphere of considerable cross-party consensus. Those on the Opposition Front Bench rarely cause any trouble in European debates, and the motions that are tabled are normally so anodyne that it is hard to oppose them. The Government broadly say that they are in favour of motherhood, apple pie and democracy while giving away as many of our freedoms as they can, as quickly as possible. Furthermore, these debates do not end up being front-page news.Where the Government get into trouble, however, is through their lack of willingness to go along with what the European Scrutiny Committee has asked for. At that point, they run into procedural difficulties. We saw that in spades over the European arrest warrant, and we thought that the Government might have learnt the error of their ways and realised that trying to obstruct the procedures of the House of Commons is an error. They might have found from yesterday’s experience, when an amendment was tabled on a subject that the Government did not want us to discuss, that the House would get its way in the end. It did so because, fortunately, we have a robust Speaker who ensures that the House gets what it wants in the end. That is much to be welcomed. However, there should not be this constant battle between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government to get that which the Standing Orders of the House of Commons require. The Government come out with ridiculous promises and fine words but simply fail to deliver on their promises. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g244.0
My right hon. Friend makes the interesting suggestion that the Government are naive and foolish, and that is one way of looking at it. My view is that they are deliberate in their attempt to subvert the will of the House of Commons and its efforts to debate things. My right hon. Friend is a generous and kindly figure, for which he is renowned across the land, whereas I am afraid that I am perhaps rather more hard-nosed on this occasion and think that there is a desire to run away from debate. I do not knowwhere that desire comes from. It is fundamentally unhealthy and undemocratic and the Government must understand that many of us will complain if this continues to happen. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g245.1
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who knows only too well about that by-election. It is extraordinary that other people within government try to subvert the will of the Prime Minister. Our constitution works well as the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, shows leadership. However, there are then people, minions—I do not know who they are, as they will not emerge or admit the role they play in undermining parliamentary scrutiny—who deliberately undermine what the Prime Minister has promised. That is the most extraordinary state of affairs, Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister needs your help to deliver on his promises. Your impartial help is needed to get the Prime Minister out of a hole dug for him by his own officials. This is a quite extraordinary and regrettable state of affairs. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g246.1
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I was worried when you said that I was making liberal reference to the Chair; I hope that I was making Conservative reference to the Chair. Other than that, I am much obliged for your helpful reminder of the Standing Orders of the House.I do not want to go on for too long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has an important debate that will follow this one. In that context, I note that when I sit down before the full time for the debate is complete the Government will once again say that the debate did not run for its full time and that the desire for such debates is therefore not as much as we might think, so they do not need to give them in future. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g246.3
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would hardly have begun my speech if I were going to go through all the intricacies it might be necessary to cover, but I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who has a serious matter to discuss that concerns my constituency.The Government must bear in mind that the debate is truncated out of the good nature of members of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Whips scurrying around asking whether we would be kindly. It has not been truncated because there is not a great deal to discuss. When the answer comes back that we are not interested as we do not take the full time, that will be an untruth. I am glad to see that the Minister for Europe is looking in my direction and notes that, because he never says anything other than the truth. I have great confidence in his intellect, if not always in the answers that come from it.Proportionality and subsidiarity are of considerable importance. I am slightly suspicious of subsidiarity because, as the shadow Minister the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has said, it comes from the teaching of the Catholic Church. The holy mother Church, to which I belong, is a great, illustrious and historic institution, but if it is known for one thing other than its piety, it is its centralisation of power. It therefore strikes me that, if subsidiarity has been thought up by the holy mother Church, it is more likely to be to do with reinforcing the authority of the Holy See and of the papacy in particular than with spreading it far and wide. I happen to think that, in the case of the Church, that is a thoroughly good thing. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g246.5
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I was coming on to that.The heart of the matter is the question of where we think democracy lies in the European Union. Does it lie in the Commission? The answer, in fairly short order, is no. Every country has a commissioner and, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has said, commissioners from very small countries sometimes get very important briefs. It was the Maltese Commissioner who finally decided whether neonicotinoids could be legal across the whole of the European Union. Malta has a population of about 250,000—which is tiny in proportion to ours, let alone that of the whole of the EU—and it was someone representing them who made a decision for all of us without any democratic accountability because the Council could not come to a decision.There is no election for European Commissioners—they are appointed by their home Governments. The President of the Commission represents Luxembourg, which is hardly the great bulwark of population and importance for which one might hope. It is not exactly the Texas, or even the Illinois, of the European Union. Relatively minor figures from their own domestic functions are put forward as commissioners, with no support from, or knowledge of, the people living in the other member states. Before he became a commissioner, very few people in the United Kingdom could have named the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. There is no democratic accountability in the Commission.Perhaps there is democratic accountability in the European Parliament, but, if there is, it is of a most extraordinary kind. The d’Hondt system for electing people is most unsatisfactory and means that most people have no clue who their MEP is. It is very difficultto seek redress of grievance through the European Parliament in the way our constituents can seek redress of grievance through this House. Indeed, one of my concerns about the whole European project is that it denies our constituents that proper redress of grievance that they can get through the House of Commons.Crucially, the European Parliament cannot have democratic accountability because it does not represent a single people. When the issue of unemployment in Greece, Spain and Portugal came up in yesterday’s debate, it was absolutely instructive that there was a complete lack of concern for unemployment in the other member states of the European Union. There is not a feeling that somebody unemployed in Greece is as important as somebody unemployed in Newcastle. Until we have that fellow feeling—the feeling that they are one people with us—there cannot be a proper democracy. The jargon, clearly, is that without a demos there cannot be democracy and there is not a single European people. Therefore, even if the European Parliament had Members who anyone knew about, and even if it was elected on a system that anyone thought was a reasonable system to elect people on, it would still not have proper democratic representation because it does not represent a single people.That brings us to the Commission, which I think is the closest we get to democracy in the European Union. The Ministers represent their Governments and those Governments have to command majorities in their respective Houses of Parliament. That brings us back to exactly where we want to be: the democratic rights of Parliament and what Parliament should be able to do within the overall system and context of the European Union. Ultimately, democratic accountability within Europe—that thin thread of accountability that exists—is through the Commission to Parliaments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g247.1
I am so sorry. I do indeed mean the Council. The Council has that thin thread to the Parliaments, which provides that democratic accountability.We then look at what those Parliaments can do. They can have a limited amount of scrutiny but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) said, that mainly comes after things have been decided; the European Scrutiny Committee gets to look at things that have already reached a far stage in the approval process within the whole European system. It is very hard to stop anything at that point, so we then move on to yellow cards. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g248.1
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is part of the control of the Commission and part of the anti-democratic set-up of the EuropeanUnion, and I do not think that is accidental; were it genuinely democratic, it would never have evolved to its current state.We get these sops, with this business of the yellow cards, of which only two have been accepted by the Commission, and one of those was immediately dismissed—it said that the one for the public prosecutor was not a matter of subsidiarity anyway and so it would push ahead regardless. We have a threshold that is very hard to reach, and as a result of which nothing need happen, and a two-month period that makes it incredibly difficult for national Parliaments to get their responses in within the limited time available. The red card would be little better.What we actually need is for our constituents—the people of the United Kingdom—to take back control of their own Government. That might be possible through renegotiation if the Government are robust, but the problem is that at the moment the Government show no sign of being robust or willing to push back to the European Union. They come out with platitudes that support the continuing accretion of power to the EU. They come forward with the fine words I have mentioned but never push on the difficult decisions. Yesterday the Minister for Europe told us that Switzerland wants to pull out of one of the treaties and that it has to take it all or leave it all, but that is an outrageous position to take if we are in favour of renegotiating for ourselves.I urge the Government to be robust, to support democracy and to make sure that, for once, what they say and what they do match. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-10a.231.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g248.3
Let me begin by talking about the way in which we have arrived at this debate, and also about the amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and all the other members of the European Scrutiny Committee who were presentat Wednesday’s meeting. It is highly unusual for a Select Committee to table a cross-party amendment on a subject that was recommended for debate nearly 14 months ago.The Government should bear it in mind that no Government are in office for ever. They should bear it in mind that the great protection of our liberties is the House’s entitlement to debate what it wishes to debate, and that they should treat that entitlement properly and respectfully by allowing such debates to take place. They should also bear it in mind that delaying deliberately, for 14 months, a debate on the free movement of people—a subject which, as we heard from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), is being discussed on every doorstep in the country—shows a contempt for the House of Commons that constitutes a grave error.When things change and another party is in government, that party too will notice that it is possible to ignore the Standing Orders of the House. That party too will notice that it is easy to clamp down on discussion in what ought to be a hotbed of democracy, and our freedoms will ebb away.The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for their delay, and the Ministers who claimed to be so much in favour of the debate when they appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee—or on the Floor of the House during questions to the Leader of the House—ought to recognise that they are powerful figures. When the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and the First Secretary of State all want a debate, it is extraordinary that we do not get that debate. Who is the mystery figure, hidden somewhere in the corridors of Whitehall, who vetoes debates? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g95.0
Is it our right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who vetoed the debate, or is it simply some mystery in the machine? Is it some faceless bureaucrat, some poor fellow sitting patiently in the officials’ Box? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g96.1
Or is it my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who now wishes to intervene? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g96.3
I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I was only speculating that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—my friend—was responsible. In fact, I think that that is unlikely; I thinkthat the person in question is more deeply hidden in the machinery than such an easy target as the Deputy Prime Minister.This topic is of fundamental importance. According to press reports that have appeared over the past few days, 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given national insurance numbers in 2014 alone. In other words, more than 200,000 people from Romania and Bulgaria have been given national insurance numbers during the period in which we have been waiting for this debate. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. According to a report from Oxford university, the population has risen by 565,000 in three years, and two thirds of those people are from European Union countries. In London alone, the population of EU member state nationals has risen by 161,000, from 711,000 to 872,000, during those three years.The Government shy away from debates on this subject, thinking that if they do not talk about it, the nation will not notice; but the nation has noticed. I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is present. His entire party is making hay with the subject, because other politicians, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)—other major political figures—are shying away from it. They believe that if they keep quiet, no one will notice. However, this is an issue of great importance to our constituents, who are worried about the sheer number of people who are entering the country because of free movement.The Government are not setting out the groundwork for the renegotiation properly. At the December 2014 Council, they agreed to the following words, which appeared in the Council’s conclusions in relation to Switzerland:“It”—the Council—“considers that the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy, and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible.”That seems to me to be a pretty bold statement, especially in connection with what we have heard about the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration being sent to Mrs Merkel for approval before being delivered. It seems that our policy on immigration must have the stamp of approval from Berlin, but we must be so committed to the European ideal that we view the free movement of people as unchallengeable. If we think that in regard to Switzerland, how can we renegotiate ourselves?When I raised that question with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe earlier, he said that Switzerland had tied itself into a number of treaty arrangements, and that if it removed itself from one of them, it might find itself being removed from all of them. Surely that is exactly what we are trying to do in a renegotiation: surely we are trying to remove ourselves from some of the treaties to which we have agreed, but not from all of them. Perhaps the Government think that that is an equally disgraceful approach, but if it is sauce for the Swiss goose, surely it is sauce for the British gander. It cannot be right for the Government to take such a strong pro-European line in this regard. It shows a lack of sincerity in their approach to renegotiation—and if they renegotiate with a lack of sincerity, the British people are far more likely to vote to leave the EU, and the Government will get precisely the result that they do not want.Time is short, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have asked for the Minister for Europe to be given a couple of minutes in which to wind up the debate. It is illustrative of how little time we have been allowed that a debate on the equivalent of a much longer Queen’s Speech and the free movement of people has been so truncated because of the Government’s failure to deliver on their promises. However, I want to make one more comment, in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The financial transaction tax and the uniform corporation tax base represent a fundamental effort to take sovereignty from this country in fiscal matters, and patriate it to a European state. The fact that we have been given only 90 minutes in which to debate a matter of such importance is pretty poor according to the Government’s standard. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g96.5
I support the right hon. Gentleman’s comments entirely. The Commission work programme is the equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, and it is inconceivable that the House would wait nearly three months before debating the Gracious Speech and then allow only 90 minutes to do so. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g91.5
I wonder if I might add to what my hon. Friend is saying. Although the Minister and the Leader of the House said that they could not possibly tell us who was blocking the provision, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the First Secretary of State and the Minister for Europe all intimated that they were very much in favour of having the debate, and wished that it could be brought forward as a matter of urgency although forces beyond their control prevented it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g87.0
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend. Of the 73 proposals being withdrawn, 71 are either obsolete or have already been blocked by the Council. Of the 79 actions being withdrawn under REFIT, 58 are evaluations or studies, five are proposals to codify, two are proposals to simplify, one is a proposal for a simplified framework and two are proposals for an update or a review. There is only one that would reduce something, against 452 Commissionproposals, less the 73 that are sitting on the table. He tells us that this is a great success for Europe. What would be failure? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g77.2
I commend my right hon. Friend’s wisdom in accepting the well thought through amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). In relation to the debate on free movement, will Her Majesty’s Government reconsider their stance on Switzerland? If we are serious about renegotiation, it seems to me that we must take a sympathetic view of its effort to get out of the principle of free movement. If that is one of the four fundamental principles applied to Switzerland, which is not even a member state, how can we have a thorough renegotiation? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g81.0
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-09a.76.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g81.2
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his brilliant and inspired Bill. On the socialists’ policy, if it is a cap, rather than a freeze, what company—particularly in the energy market, where prices are so volatile—in its right mind would reduce prices, even if the market price fell, knowing it could not put them back up if the market price rose? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-06b.1216.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1218.4
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would go further and say that we should not have subsidies in the energy market at all and that it should be a proper free market, with providers getting a market price and consumers paying the market price, rather than additions for what the Prime Minister once described in fairly fruity terms in relation to greenery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-06b.1216.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1220.0
Having listened to the Minister and the Opposition spokesmen and the broad compass of the debate, the Government’s opposition to the clause means that it is unnecessary for me to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.70
Having listened to the Minister and the Opposition spokesmen and the broad compass of the debate, the Government’s opposition to the clause means that it is unnecessary for me to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.70
May I place on record my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for promising me a creme egg in the Committee and for delivering? He is a politician who delivers on his promises. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
Was. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
May I place on record my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for promising me a creme egg in the Committee and for delivering? He is a politician who delivers on his promises. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
Was. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
It is the second authoritative study. This is extremely encouraging, because it supports my amendment, does it not? Because of all this great weight of evidence, of which I hope there is a good deal more, it would be wise to stop the Secretary of State interfering in people’s lives. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.22
I have been contemplating this issue deeply, and I wonder whether it is contradictory, or whether it turns out that clever women and not very clever men are inclined to drink more heavily. Both could possibly be true. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.26
Did the study say a glass of red wine every day, or every hour? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.32
In earlier times, it was permissible to bring refreshments into Committees, and indeed into the House. There used to be orange sellers in the Members’ Lobby for that purpose, but that is not the modern practice. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.38
There was a recent report that the study on salt that had said that it was so dangerous had given rats 8 lb of salt a day—or the equivalent of 8 lb for a human. It would have been 8 lb for a human when grossed up, because otherwise they would never have fitted the salt into the beastly rat. Therefore, the rat had died—well, it is not surprising. It is one of these idiotic studies. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.40
It may be a happy outcome, because rats are pests. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.46
It is the second authoritative study. This is extremely encouraging, because it supports my amendment, does it not? Because of all this great weight of evidence, of which I hope there is a good deal more, it would be wise to stop the Secretary of State interfering in people’s lives. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.22
I have been contemplating this issue deeply, and I wonder whether it is contradictory, or whether it turns out that clever women and not very clever men are inclined to drink more heavily. Both could possibly be true. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.26
Did the study say a glass of red wine every day, or every hour? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.32
In earlier times, it was permissible to bring refreshments into Committees, and indeed into the House. There used to be orange sellers in the Members’ Lobby for that purpose, but that is not the modern practice. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.38
There was a recent report that the study on salt that had said that it was so dangerous had given rats 8 lb of salt a day—or the equivalent of 8 lb for a human. It would have been 8 lb for a human when grossed up, because otherwise they would never have fitted the salt into the beastly rat. Therefore, the rat had died—well, it is not surprising. It is one of these idiotic studies. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.40
It may be a happy outcome, because rats are pests. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.46
While my hon. Friend is saying what an enormous privilege it is to have this new Chairman—I think we are all rejoicing that my hon. Friend is with us—would it not be necessary to reprise some of the points that have been made? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
My hon. Friend raises a key point that I wanted to bring out in my amendment. I periodically get accused of being in the pay of the tobacco industry, which I am not—my investment business has investments outside, not in, the United Kingdom—but in the 18th century it was thought that smoking was good if you lived in damp air. People who went to my old school were beaten for not smoking, whereas by the 20th century it was the other way around. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.12
Lefties. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.14
I am fascinated by this argument. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a causal link and that the more people drink, the cleverer they are? Ought we to amend the Standing Orders of the House and have a tot of rum sent round immediately? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.18
It would be helpful if my hon. Friend were to place a copy of the report in the Library for other Members to study at greater length once our sitting has finished. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.20
While my hon. Friend is saying what an enormous privilege it is to have this new Chairman—I think we are all rejoicing that my hon. Friend is with us—would it not be necessary to reprise some of the points that have been made? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
My hon. Friend raises a key point that I wanted to bring out in my amendment. I periodically get accused of being in the pay of the tobacco industry, which I am not—my investment business has investments outside, not in, the United Kingdom—but in the 18th century it was thought that smoking was good if you lived in damp air. People who went to my old school were beaten for not smoking, whereas by the 20th century it was the other way around. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.12
Lefties. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.14
I am fascinated by this argument. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a causal link and that the more people drink, the cleverer they are? Ought we to amend the Standing Orders of the House and have a tot of rum sent round immediately? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.18
It would be helpful if my hon. Friend were to place a copy of the report in the Library for other Members to study at greater length once our sitting has finished. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/07-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.20
As the Government prepare for renegotiating the European treaties, will they give their full support to the Swiss in their efforts to change their terms of free movement of people as a sign of their sincerity and a symbol that free movement of people is not an unchallengeable part of the European state? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-03-03b.804.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g807.6
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is not reading the whole of the clause, which states:“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct…nor provide”.Therefore, it is a question of entitling or requiring. It does not mean that the Secretary of State cannot follow through the consequences of what causes the disease to spread. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.142
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Could you clarify your ruling? Do you mean illegal drugs? Pharmaceuticals may be relevant to the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.157
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is not reading the whole of the clause, which states:“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct…nor provide”.Therefore, it is a question of entitling or requiring. It does not mean that the Secretary of State cannot follow through the consequences of what causes the disease to spread. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.142
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Could you clarify your ruling? Do you mean illegal drugs? Pharmaceuticals may be relevant to the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.157
While this debate has been going on, another silly example of health fanaticism has come up. Some expert has suggested that parents wrap up little bits of fruit and vegetable and hide them round the house for the children to find and eat with excitement in place of chocolates. That seems so extraordinarily barmy that it is important to control officialdom so that they do not make us have rotting fruit all round our houses. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.115
She often does. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.117
I do not think our right hon. Friend is reading the details of amendment 40, which simply says that“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda”.This is not prohibiting the Secretary of State from telling people about dangerous diseases. AIDS would not be affected by this provision. It is a question of telling people about the disease; they can then decide for themselves how to modify their behaviour. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.128
Although I accept there is a nuance in this, I think it perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to warn about a disease and that it might be caused by certain behaviour, without telling people that they have to change their behaviour. It is about trusting individuals to behave responsibly on the basis of the information they have. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.134
While this debate has been going on, another silly example of health fanaticism has come up. Some expert has suggested that parents wrap up little bits of fruit and vegetable and hide them round the house for the children to find and eat with excitement in place of chocolates. That seems so extraordinarily barmy that it is important to control officialdom so that they do not make us have rotting fruit all round our houses. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.115
She often does. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.117
I do not think our right hon. Friend is reading the details of amendment 40, which simply says that“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda”.This is not prohibiting the Secretary of State from telling people about dangerous diseases. AIDS would not be affected by this provision. It is a question of telling people about the disease; they can then decide for themselves how to modify their behaviour. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.128
Although I accept there is a nuance in this, I think it perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to warn about a disease and that it might be caused by certain behaviour, without telling people that they have to change their behaviour. It is about trusting individuals to behave responsibly on the basis of the information they have. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.134
I had not considered the American definition, but it is very helpful, because we want an intuitive health service where clinicians understand what is necessary and do what they think is right, rather than one where a long list is laid down by the faceless bureaucrat friends of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.98
I am afraid that has lowered my opinion of them. People who use the word “passionate” when they mean they have a modest enthusiasm for something abuse the English language in such a way that their comments should not be read into Hansard. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
There is a fundamental difference between social solidarity and medical necessity, and it is a fundamental difference between conservatism and the Labour party. The term “medical necessity” refers to the needs of the individual; social solidarity is about the collective, and someone may decide not to proceed with treatment because they are putting the collective ahead of the individual. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
I had not considered the American definition, but it is very helpful, because we want an intuitive health service where clinicians understand what is necessary and do what they think is right, rather than one where a long list is laid down by the faceless bureaucrat friends of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.98
I am afraid that has lowered my opinion of them. People who use the word “passionate” when they mean they have a modest enthusiasm for something abuse the English language in such a way that their comments should not be read into Hansard. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
There is a fundamental difference between social solidarity and medical necessity, and it is a fundamental difference between conservatism and the Labour party. The term “medical necessity” refers to the needs of the individual; social solidarity is about the collective, and someone may decide not to proceed with treatment because they are putting the collective ahead of the individual. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
Indeed, I fundamentally support the reassertion of our sovereignty, not just over our health service, but over all aspects of our lives. The Bill, however, would not do what the hon. Member for Eltham argues, because it would be justiciable before the European Court of Justice without a “notwithstanding” clause. He needs a “notwithstanding” clause to make his Bill effective. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.78
How can my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire be sure of that? Has he not tested for masks and things like that? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.84
In his comments so far my hon. Friend has mainly been saying that the aim of the Bill is to stop the NHS being, in the terms of the Labour party, privatised—a misuse of that term but let us use it for the time being. Does social solidarity actually do that? Does it achieve what the Labour party wants to achieve, which is stopping private providers selling their services to the NHS, or is it too woolly for that? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.86
Indeed, I fundamentally support the reassertion of our sovereignty, not just over our health service, but over all aspects of our lives. The Bill, however, would not do what the hon. Member for Eltham argues, because it would be justiciable before the European Court of Justice without a “notwithstanding” clause. He needs a “notwithstanding” clause to make his Bill effective. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.78
How can my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire be sure of that? Has he not tested for masks and things like that? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.84
In his comments so far my hon. Friend has mainly been saying that the aim of the Bill is to stop the NHS being, in the terms of the Labour party, privatised—a misuse of that term but let us use it for the time being. Does social solidarity actually do that? Does it achieve what the Labour party wants to achieve, which is stopping private providers selling their services to the NHS, or is it too woolly for that? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.86
I have a feeling that “provide” was not used because that might have involved expenditure, which might have required a money resolution. It is probably careful wording. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.74
I have a feeling that “provide” was not used because that might have involved expenditure, which might have required a money resolution. It is probably careful wording. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.74
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Of course I agree with him that life is above any price—value for money when saving life cannot apply. However, that is not quite to say that it does not apply to any part of the provision of medical services. For example, a generic drug is cheaper than a branded drug, but it has exactly the same composition, so I think value for money can go further than my hon. Friend allows. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.50
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Of course I agree with him that life is above any price—value for money when saving life cannot apply. However, that is not quite to say that it does not apply to any part of the provision of medical services. For example, a generic drug is cheaper than a branded drug, but it has exactly the same composition, so I think value for money can go further than my hon. Friend allows. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.50
In this competition there is no absolute. Somebody like me would probably go for the tried and tested, for the older consultant who could be relied upon, while a radical like the hon. Member for Eltham would go for the new and untested. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.37
In this competition there is no absolute. Somebody like me would probably go for the tried and tested, for the older consultant who could be relied upon, while a radical like the hon. Member for Eltham would go for the new and untested. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.37
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining his interests. The issue was brought up in the debate last week. My interests, which I referred to, mainly involve investment management, and none of my investments are in the United Kingdom. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.6
I merely make the technical point that we cannot vote on any of the amendments until they have been put formally. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire might decide, having listened to the wonderful oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, that he does not want to press the amendments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.18
If there is to be no private provision, is that going back to Labour’s clause IV? Must hospital bed and blanket manufacturers be nationalised? Is it going back to socialism red in tooth and claw? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.22
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining his interests. The issue was brought up in the debate last week. My interests, which I referred to, mainly involve investment management, and none of my investments are in the United Kingdom. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.6
I merely make the technical point that we cannot vote on any of the amendments until they have been put formally. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire might decide, having listened to the wonderful oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, that he does not want to press the amendments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.18
If there is to be no private provision, is that going back to Labour’s clause IV? Must hospital bed and blanket manufacturers be nationalised? Is it going back to socialism red in tooth and claw? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/06-0_2015-03-03a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.22
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant and incisive point, because has not the whole lesson of the past five years been that public services have been able to deliver more with less? That should also be true of ombudsmen, and therefore the amendment is otiose. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-27a.596.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.0
It occurs to me that that allows me to say that that is all thanks to our long-term economic plan—the first time I have managed to get those words into Hansard. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-27a.596.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.2
Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), may I say that I am not entirely sure that corsets are normally metallic—I believe they are generally made of whalebone? Leaving that aside, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) ought to be introducing a shorter time limit, because we all know that work expands to fill the time available. [Interruption.] Parkinson’s law, indeed. As soon as a 12-month time limit is introduced, that is the time that will be taken. If 95% of complaints are being dealt with within six months, six months would seem to be quite a good limit. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-27a.596.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g598.0
It occurs to me that, for once, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) is wrong. If a public body failed torespond to the ombudsman, it should be found against and that would be quite a penalty and an incentive not to procrastinate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-27a.596.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g598.4
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be helpful to ask you about my understanding that it is not customary to explain points of one’s interests in interventions or supplementary questions; that is normally reserved for main speeches, the idea being that it advances the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-25a.381.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g394.2
The question I pose to my right hon. Friend is, how would the check be carried out? What would be the requirement of a GP? Would the GP be expected to guess whether people were eligible? Would they ask non-residents for their passports? I would be nervous if this became an argument for identity cards or anything of that kind. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.200
I think “immigration status” does include people here on holiday, because they either require a visa or are under a visa waiver scheme—they are none the less immigrants into this country. Likewise, people who are on short-term work contracts have some degree of immigration status; otherwise they could not be here.I should have liked to widen the clause, but if it had introduced a new charge on people—even on British people—it would have required a money resolution, which, as we know, the Bill does not have. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.216
As we are debating clause stand part, can my right hon. Friend, as a former Minister, give his understanding of how ministerial responsibility would apply in this context? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.220
The question I pose to my right hon. Friend is, how would the check be carried out? What would be the requirement of a GP? Would the GP be expected to guess whether people were eligible? Would they ask non-residents for their passports? I would be nervous if this became an argument for identity cards or anything of that kind. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.200
I think “immigration status” does include people here on holiday, because they either require a visa or are under a visa waiver scheme—they are none the less immigrants into this country. Likewise, people who are on short-term work contracts have some degree of immigration status; otherwise they could not be here.I should have liked to widen the clause, but if it had introduced a new charge on people—even on British people—it would have required a money resolution, which, as we know, the Bill does not have. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.216
As we are debating clause stand part, can my right hon. Friend, as a former Minister, give his understanding of how ministerial responsibility would apply in this context? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.220
Just before the sitting was suspended, I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend about one concern that I had about the amendment. From his expert point of view, can he guide me as to whether the costs of putting in a system to ensure that people were charged would be proportionate to the revenue that would be generated through charging them? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.194
Just before the sitting was suspended, I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend about one concern that I had about the amendment. From his expert point of view, can he guide me as to whether the costs of putting in a system to ensure that people were charged would be proportionate to the revenue that would be generated through charging them? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.194
There is also a fundamental misuse of the word “privatisation” for a political end. Privatisation means selling an asset owned by the Government into the private sector; it does not mean the Government buying services from the private sector. Otherwise, every time the House of Commons bought a pencil, it would be privatisation of the House of Commons. It is an absolutely nonsensical use of language. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.169
There is also a fundamental misuse of the word “privatisation” for a political end. Privatisation means selling an asset owned by the Government into the private sector; it does not mean the Government buying services from the private sector. Otherwise, every time the House of Commons bought a pencil, it would be privatisation of the House of Commons. It is an absolutely nonsensical use of language. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.169
I thought it might be useful if I explained what I was trying to do with the amendment. It is very simple: even if, later in the existing legislation, there is the requirement for consultation, this is a new duty, a replacement duty, that is being created. It says the Secretary of State “must ensure”, and therefore it may not be subject to previous consultations required in earlier legislation. Members will understand the law of implied repeal, and therefore I think it is important to be specific. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.149
I thought it might be useful if I explained what I was trying to do with the amendment. It is very simple: even if, later in the existing legislation, there is the requirement for consultation, this is a new duty, a replacement duty, that is being created. It says the Secretary of State “must ensure”, and therefore it may not be subject to previous consultations required in earlier legislation. Members will understand the law of implied repeal, and therefore I think it is important to be specific. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.149
With regard to the private Members’ ballot, I am with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire; I always hope desperately that my name will not come up, because I feel that some people might be moved to speak at great length if ever I got a Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.122
With regard to the private Members’ ballot, I am with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire; I always hope desperately that my name will not come up, because I feel that some people might be moved to speak at great length if ever I got a Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.122
Is bringing social solidarity into the legal order a way of making it possible for member states to get round some of the regulations introduced by the European Union? They might say, “We can’t do this because we have social solidarity.” Is it weakening efforts to create a single market? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Can he give us any examples of when“services of general economic interest”would conflict with social solidarity? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
Is bringing social solidarity into the legal order a way of making it possible for member states to get round some of the regulations introduced by the European Union? They might say, “We can’t do this because we have social solidarity.” Is it weakening efforts to create a single market? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Can he give us any examples of when“services of general economic interest”would conflict with social solidarity? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, could he say a little more on the case in relation to French broadband? The pricing mechanism used is of direct relevance to the national health service, because it seemed to be giving the provider of state aid enormous flexibility to determine the price. Does he think that that is likely to remain as flexible as it is? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.94
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, could he say a little more on the case in relation to French broadband? The pricing mechanism used is of direct relevance to the national health service, because it seemed to be giving the provider of state aid enormous flexibility to determine the price. Does he think that that is likely to remain as flexible as it is? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.94
While my right hon. Friend is still on that point, there is an obvious easy way of making the amendment function, which is to insert the words “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Then it would be a superior law and would override the ability of the judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union to strike it down. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
It would in terms of UK law at least; it might not in terms of EU law, but EU law applies in the UK only because of the European Communities Act 1972, as we reconfirmed it in the European Union Act 2011. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.61
While my right hon. Friend is still on that point, there is an obvious easy way of making the amendment function, which is to insert the words “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Then it would be a superior law and would override the ability of the judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union to strike it down. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
It would in terms of UK law at least; it might not in terms of EU law, but EU law applies in the UK only because of the European Communities Act 1972, as we reconfirmed it in the European Union Act 2011. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.61
My right hon. Friend is taking us through an extraordinarily interesting area of public law. In the case to which he refers and in terms of its application to the national health service, does it require a complainant to object that the payment by the state is in breach of European law, or would it be a matter for the Commission to enforce? Does that bring us into the area of procurement and the effect that might have under these issues of competition? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.53
I hope that somebody will because it goes to the heart of what is happening. If the clause suddenly brings the national health service under EU competition law and requires differences in procurement procedures between national health service hospitals owned and run by the Government and hospitals owned and run by other service providers, it could be fundamental to the future of the health service. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
Before my right hon. Friend moves on from those important four points, the question that must arise is: how do we determine a fair price in a system that does not have any external competition and may have only a single supplier? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
My right hon. Friend is taking us through an extraordinarily interesting area of public law. In the case to which he refers and in terms of its application to the national health service, does it require a complainant to object that the payment by the state is in breach of European law, or would it be a matter for the Commission to enforce? Does that bring us into the area of procurement and the effect that might have under these issues of competition? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.53
I hope that somebody will because it goes to the heart of what is happening. If the clause suddenly brings the national health service under EU competition law and requires differences in procurement procedures between national health service hospitals owned and run by the Government and hospitals owned and run by other service providers, it could be fundamental to the future of the health service. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
Before my right hon. Friend moves on from those important four points, the question that must arise is: how do we determine a fair price in a system that does not have any external competition and may have only a single supplier? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
I was troubled about the hon. Member for Eltham being accused of being ambitious. I recall that Brutus said that Caesar was ambitious and that all ended nastily. I do not see the hon. Gentleman as a tyrant in the way that Caesar was. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
I was troubled about the hon. Member for Eltham being accused of being ambitious. I recall that Brutus said that Caesar was ambitious and that all ended nastily. I do not see the hon. Gentleman as a tyrant in the way that Caesar was. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend on definitions of social general interest and economic interest. In the health service, are we using the word “economic” in its normal context, or are we simply saying that anything that has a cost is automatically economic? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.37
I am grateful for that revelation. I think my right hon. Friend is saying that, with the Bill, the Labour party is planning to privatise the national health service. That is what the clause would do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.41
My right hon. Friend has raised a profound point. If the courts have not adjudicated on the issue of a declaration of the health service being of general economic interest and taking it outside general competition law, we could pass—without his amendment—a clause that would require the Secretary of State to do something unlawful under EU law which, under the European Communities Act 1972, trumps our domestic law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.43
I am indebted to my right hon. Friend. Does he think it might be sensible to get counsel’s opinion? Possibly his learned wife might be able to provide us with a learned opinion on the situation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.45
I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend on definitions of social general interest and economic interest. In the health service, are we using the word “economic” in its normal context, or are we simply saying that anything that has a cost is automatically economic? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.37
I am grateful for that revelation. I think my right hon. Friend is saying that, with the Bill, the Labour party is planning to privatise the national health service. That is what the clause would do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.41
My right hon. Friend has raised a profound point. If the courts have not adjudicated on the issue of a declaration of the health service being of general economic interest and taking it outside general competition law, we could pass—without his amendment—a clause that would require the Secretary of State to do something unlawful under EU law which, under the European Communities Act 1972, trumps our domestic law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.43
I am indebted to my right hon. Friend. Does he think it might be sensible to get counsel’s opinion? Possibly his learned wife might be able to provide us with a learned opinion on the situation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.45
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree that the article is quite impenetrable. However, might he try to translate it for us, so that we can develop some understanding, because he is widely regarded as one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons? While we still have the pleasure of his being here, perhaps he could turn his mind to a translation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.21
My right hon. Friend is generous and tolerant in accepting interventions. With regard to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, do not we have to discuss these matters, because one cannot be sure which amendments may be approved by the Committee? The Committee needs to be in possession of the full facts and full understanding before coming to Divisions. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.25
There has been understandable confusion between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and me. We are very similar in so many ways and I understand why the Committee may have made that error. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.29
My right hon. Friend is referring to the EU working document. Can he tell us what the status of an EU working document is in terms of EU law? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.31
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree that the article is quite impenetrable. However, might he try to translate it for us, so that we can develop some understanding, because he is widely regarded as one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons? While we still have the pleasure of his being here, perhaps he could turn his mind to a translation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.21
My right hon. Friend is generous and tolerant in accepting interventions. With regard to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, do not we have to discuss these matters, because one cannot be sure which amendments may be approved by the Committee? The Committee needs to be in possession of the full facts and full understanding before coming to Divisions. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.25
There has been understandable confusion between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and me. We are very similar in so many ways and I understand why the Committee may have made that error. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.29
My right hon. Friend is referring to the EU working document. Can he tell us what the status of an EU working document is in terms of EU law? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.31
Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.10
It is as much a point of order as the one made by the hon. Member for Eltham. Had the Labour party Members stayed that day, we would have been able to have the debate. We were more than willing to stay, but if the Opposition waltz off home, they cannot expect us to stay. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.12
Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.10
It is as much a point of order as the one made by the hon. Member for Eltham. Had the Labour party Members stayed that day, we would have been able to have the debate. We were more than willing to stay, but if the Opposition waltz off home, they cannot expect us to stay. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/05-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.12
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the finance commissioner, for example, should be elected by the whole House, even if he is not saying that the commissioners without portfolio should be elected by the whole House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-24c.223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g231.1
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that we got there thanks to his amazing chairmanship. It was amazing to see so sophisticated and capable an operator steer us through,when we had a lot of differences of emphasis on the Committee at the beginning. I hope he does not mind my interrupting him to put that on the record. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-24c.223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g227.1
While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the responsibilities of the Commission and how it will work, may I ask whether it is still envisaged that the commissioners will be elected, and if so, will that be by the whole House or by the individual parties? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-24c.223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g225.0
I commend my right hon. Friend’s wisdom in supporting my amendment, because value for money is simple to understand. The term does not  have some hidden European meaning. I was trying not to find a phrase that was understandable only to an elite, but to find a phrase that was understood by everybody in their normal use of language. I do not model myself on Humpty Dumpty. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.122
That point was brought up in a previous sitting by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. I said that it could be corrected on Third Reading, when it is possible to make amendments that are merely verbal. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.126
I commend my right hon. Friend’s wisdom in supporting my amendment, because value for money is simple to understand. The term does not  have some hidden European meaning. I was trying not to find a phrase that was understandable only to an elite, but to find a phrase that was understood by everybody in their normal use of language. I do not model myself on Humpty Dumpty. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.122
That point was brought up in a previous sitting by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. I said that it could be corrected on Third Reading, when it is possible to make amendments that are merely verbal. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.126
May I tempt my right hon. Friend further about that? He says that we would be delegating to our judges, but if we incorporate terms from European law—one in the charter of fundamental rights and one defined by the European Union—we risk making the health service a European competence. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.108
I am pleased to say that the public house in the village where I live is called The Crown. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.112
May I tempt my right hon. Friend further about that? He says that we would be delegating to our judges, but if we incorporate terms from European law—one in the charter of fundamental rights and one defined by the European Union—we risk making the health service a European competence. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.108
I am pleased to say that the public house in the village where I live is called The Crown. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.112
I suppose they had to leave out the “O”; otherwise it would have been “soggy”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
Will my right hon. Friend explain where the economic interest is? That part is not clear. I can see that this is a service obligation, which it might be right—or not—to place upon Governments, but in what sense is it economic or making any contribution to the economy? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.102
I suppose they had to leave out the “O”; otherwise it would have been “soggy”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
Will my right hon. Friend explain where the economic interest is? That part is not clear. I can see that this is a service obligation, which it might be right—or not—to place upon Governments, but in what sense is it economic or making any contribution to the economy? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.102
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, and so that we have a basic understanding of these broad principles, is it fair to say that mechanical solidarity is equivalent to micro, and organic solidarity to macro? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.82
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping me to avoid error. That is why it is so important for him to explain the differences. We can then be clear about what we are looking at before we move on. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.84
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, and so that we have a basic understanding of these broad principles, is it fair to say that mechanical solidarity is equivalent to micro, and organic solidarity to macro? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.82
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping me to avoid error. That is why it is so important for him to explain the differences. We can then be clear about what we are looking at before we move on. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.84
It is important that my right hon. Friend says a little more about the risk that the Bill would be a litigant’s charter. As he said, there seems to be an implicit contradiction: on the one hand, the Government are reducing the ability to apply for judicial reviews, and on the other hand, the Bill would introduce something that may allow endless judicial reviews. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.63
I am glad that we are at last quoting a Briton. Are we getting good British common sense coming through against continental fancies? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.67
While my right hon. Friend took an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I checked the etymology of the name  “Baldwin”, which, as I expected, is a good Anglo-Saxon name. With Alfred the Great looking down on us, I think we can claim him as one of ours. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.71
“Art” is very often short for Arthur, which must be the name of a very sound Briton. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.73
It is important that my right hon. Friend says a little more about the risk that the Bill would be a litigant’s charter. As he said, there seems to be an implicit contradiction: on the one hand, the Government are reducing the ability to apply for judicial reviews, and on the other hand, the Bill would introduce something that may allow endless judicial reviews. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.63
I am glad that we are at last quoting a Briton. Are we getting good British common sense coming through against continental fancies? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.67
While my right hon. Friend took an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I checked the etymology of the name  “Baldwin”, which, as I expected, is a good Anglo-Saxon name. With Alfred the Great looking down on us, I think we can claim him as one of ours. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.71
“Art” is very often short for Arthur, which must be the name of a very sound Briton. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.73
I was pleased, indeed honoured, to be able to put my name to my right hon. Friend’s amendment, because I think those first few words are essentially covered by other parts of the Bill and are therefore otiose in the provision he seeks to remove. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
Would my right hon. Friend be thinking of something such as a monastery or a convent in terms of mechanical solidarity? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.53
Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill wended its way to this Committee from what used to be called Transport House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
I was pleased, indeed honoured, to be able to put my name to my right hon. Friend’s amendment, because I think those first few words are essentially covered by other parts of the Bill and are therefore otiose in the provision he seeks to remove. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
Would my right hon. Friend be thinking of something such as a monastery or a convent in terms of mechanical solidarity? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.53
Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill wended its way to this Committee from what used to be called Transport House? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
I am a little puzzled. The dinner seemed to be a private dinner, rather than a public dinner. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will elaborate on the exact circumstances of his dinner. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.27
Just to clarify, had the loyal toast been given, and was it therefore in order to smoke? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.29
I can reveal that our mothers are friends, so at least we have a connection. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.34
While my right hon. Friend is still on the matter of chocolate, it is important to understand that there have been some recent studies showing that chocolate can have enormous health benefits. Apparently it is very good for removing wrinkles, according to reports in last week’s newspapers. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.36
Just eat it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.38
Fortunately, as this is the Committee stage, I might be able to fill in any gaps later. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.44
I am a little puzzled. The dinner seemed to be a private dinner, rather than a public dinner. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will elaborate on the exact circumstances of his dinner. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.27
Just to clarify, had the loyal toast been given, and was it therefore in order to smoke? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.29
I can reveal that our mothers are friends, so at least we have a connection. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.34
While my right hon. Friend is still on the matter of chocolate, it is important to understand that there have been some recent studies showing that chocolate can have enormous health benefits. Apparently it is very good for removing wrinkles, according to reports in last week’s newspapers. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.36
Just eat it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.38
Fortunately, as this is the Committee stage, I might be able to fill in any gaps later. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.44
I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend has given way. I stress the urgency of this, because a gentleman called Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum told us at the weekend that we Members of Parliament eat too many chocolate bars, chalking up about 200,000 a month among the lot of us. I think it is a jolly good thing and we should eat more chocolate bars. I would like to encourage that and tell Mr Fry, named after a famous chocolate manufacturer, that he should enjoy his heritage more. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.23
I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend has given way. I stress the urgency of this, because a gentleman called Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum told us at the weekend that we Members of Parliament eat too many chocolate bars, chalking up about 200,000 a month among the lot of us. I think it is a jolly good thing and we should eat more chocolate bars. I would like to encourage that and tell Mr Fry, named after a famous chocolate manufacturer, that he should enjoy his heritage more. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/04-0_2015-02-24a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.23
Does this question itself show the danger of eliding tax avoidance and tax evasion? There is no obligation on anybody to pay more tax than the law requires and even the most respectable families have schemes of arrangements to minimise things like death duties, whereas tax evasion is a very serious criminal offence which should be come down on with the full force of the law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-23d.23.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g30.2
Article 39 of Magna Carta contains the origins of our right to trial by jury. In a recent report, Sir Brian Leveson, not satisfied with undermining the right to a free press, wants to restrict the right to trial by jury. Will my right hon. Friend, as long as he is Prime Minister, defend our historic rights? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-11d.778.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g778.5
I am grateful for that intervention, but the hon. Gentleman will note that my amendment would insert“that ensures value for money”—yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the “of” might go as well. I accept that. Fortunately, there is a provision that on Third Reading, amendments that are merely verbal may be made, so if such an error were put into the Bill, it could be corrected even at the latest possible stage. That would be a great joy, because the amendment merely verbal on Third Reading has not been made for an extremely long period.I have covered most of my other amendments, which I have been working steadily through. Some of them will come up again later. I mention amendment 42 briefly, which relates to the inclusion of local government bodies, because it should not merely be Government bodies doing these things. As I have mentioned in an earlier speech, my council in North East Somerset is very good at dealing with the social services side and the health side.My final amendment in the group, amendment 49, would add at the end of line 13,“or is a charge made to a person who is not entitled to free care by virtue of his immigration status.”That is a bit mean. I am not one of those people who gets terribly upset about health tourism, because I do not think it is a major problem. I think it is a problem much more written up than in reality. None the less, I did not want the Bill to extend our health service to all and sundry. That goes slightly to the Catholic Church’s point about social solidarity including the whole world, not just, in the case of this clause at this stage of this Bill, the people of England. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.186
I am grateful for that intervention, but the hon. Gentleman will note that my amendment would insert“that ensures value for money”—yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the “of” might go as well. I accept that. Fortunately, there is a provision that on Third Reading, amendments that are merely verbal may be made, so if such an error were put into the Bill, it could be corrected even at the latest possible stage. That would be a great joy, because the amendment merely verbal on Third Reading has not been made for an extremely long period.I have covered most of my other amendments, which I have been working steadily through. Some of them will come up again later. I mention amendment 42 briefly, which relates to the inclusion of local government bodies, because it should not merely be Government bodies doing these things. As I have mentioned in an earlier speech, my council in North East Somerset is very good at dealing with the social services side and the health side.My final amendment in the group, amendment 49, would add at the end of line 13,“or is a charge made to a person who is not entitled to free care by virtue of his immigration status.”That is a bit mean. I am not one of those people who gets terribly upset about health tourism, because I do not think it is a major problem. I think it is a problem much more written up than in reality. None the less, I did not want the Bill to extend our health service to all and sundry. That goes slightly to the Catholic Church’s point about social solidarity including the whole world, not just, in the case of this clause at this stage of this Bill, the people of England. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.186
I am a great believer in having my cake and eating it, or eating my cake and having it. One should regularly try to do that, because life is too short not to. I will, however, explain exactly what I mean by“unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”and why that campaign was perfectly legitimate. It was warning people about a very dangerous disease. It was not telling them that walking up a few steps would make their heart a bit better; it was passing on a fact. I mentioned propaganda. I am against propaganda and things that do not have an element of truth within them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.166
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his good intervention. Although I did not want unsolicited advice from the Minister, that was obviously helpful unsolicited advice. It was a cold-call intervention par excellence that has helped the debate along its way. It is exactly the point I was trying to make.The amendment talks about not spending public funds on propaganda, which I have covered. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.168
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I apologise for going too quickly through my speech. I could of course go back over some of the more salient points if that would help the Committee, if it has forgotten what I have said or was not listening in the first place. I thought the Minister covered the point so extraordinarily clearly. He said that it was not about telling people what to do; it was about providing information on facts. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.170
I think that is covered by what the amendment says. We disagree on this point. I am quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to make sedentary interventions, but I think the amendment is clear and a Secretary of State would understand what it meant. The differentiation is pretty clear. The Minister covered this and I thought I had: a notifiable disease of real seriousness, not just random advice or a cold call telling people how to change their behaviour, is of such an obviously different order of magnitude that it is covered. When we get home this evening, we will wait to see whether we get lots of cold calls from the Secretary of State. We will look forward to them and enjoy them. He might give us some tips about how to continue this debate on future days.I want to come to the point about discriminating against specific foodstuffs. I set out some of my argument in what I quoted from the Daily Mail, but it seems to me to be a judgment that it is not proper for the Government to make. They cannot really say that we ought to eat bananas and ought not to eat sugar, because in five years’ time they will be telling us that bananas are bad for us. I actually think that bananas are loathsome. I have never liked them, so if the Government told me that I should eat bananas, I would find it difficult to obey. Even if the Minister himself wrote out a prescription telling me that I should eat bananas, I would find it difficult to oblige him. That is not what Governments should be doing. They should allow consumers free choice.I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that free choice often encompasses information—the more information one has, the better—but does it not fall back on to consumers to demand it? They should say, “I want to know: what is in this banana?  What is in this Creme Egg? What is in this Appletise?” or whatever it is—Babycham is a famous drink made just outside my constituency in Shepton Mallet that was very fashionable in the 1960s; I must confess that it slightly predates even me. People might ask for such notices about what those things contained, rather than it all having to be prescribed and the Government deciding what they liked and did not like. I hope I have made the point clearly: they get it wrong.The final part of the amendment says, without the split infinitive, which we are all applauding, “nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”. This House, Parliament and Government—the forces of law making in this country—have the ability to decide that certain things that are legal should be illegal, or that certain things that are illegal should be legal. That is what we are here to do. We are not here to decide that things that are legal are only semi-legal by edict. That strikes me as an improper way to behave.With your indulgence, Mr Bone, at this point I come to plain paper packaging, because it is immediately relevant. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.172
Will you forgive me, Mr Bone, if I say that that was an “eggcellent” point? Or perhaps it was an “eggregious” interruption of my flow; an “eggsample” to us all. I think that is enough of that.No—that was desperate, terrible advice. It did terrible damage to the egg industry because the Government did not really know enough. They bungled it, telling us we should not eat perfectly good eggs. We have had a terrible scare about eggs ever since. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.174
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry to diverge from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, which is a rare event because I like to follow in the tracks that he lays out for me, but when we were told not to eat eggs because they were all stuffed full of salmonella, it turned out that, actually, a lot of eggs were not; that if they were cooked for a little while, they would not be stuffed full of any salmonella; and that even if someone has soft scrambled egg, which is much nicer than rubbery old scrambled egg, which I very much deprecate, they will be fine. I read somewhere that now they are even saying that most expectant mothers can have soft scrambled egg without taking an undue risk. Such advice comes in an atmosphere of panic and urgency, but it is fundamentally rotten. Oh—sorry to have said rotten in the context of eggs; that was not deliberate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.176
I hope so. Perhaps it is the duty of what used to be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to start telling us that foodstuffs are safe and are not subject to avian flu. I do not want that to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health because, although my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is right—dare I say that his point is almost a curate’s egg because it was good in parts?—the wrong Ministry is going to have that authority, which is why I want to take it away from the Department of Health. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.178
It’s not my final point. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.180
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I think it is for the Food Standards Agency to determine whether food is fit for human consumption and to advise accordingly. That aspect is covered by a separate and different Government body, and the Food Standards Agency basically implements European regulations anyway, so my point that it should not be the Secretary of State for Health stands. I make that differentiation because the overall push from the Department of Health is to regulate our lives further. The occasions when things turn out to be all right are relatively rare. Therefore, I would rather that those responsibilities were with other people and other bodies, so that they do not spread and get a bit of leeway that allows them to creep into a mousehole of regulation, and then build a cave of regulation behind it. I would therefore limit this power.I turn to the phrase“nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”.I have never been a smoker. I have never wanted to smoke, and I have no views on whether it is a habit in which others should indulge. I am well aware that smoking is unhealthy. It is a dangerous habit; none the less, it is a legal industry. It is an industry that is subject to— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.182
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, because that is exactly what I am trying to do. I said “any lawful industry” because my point is much broader than plain packaging. Although plain packaging is not my specific point, it is a side part of it.Tobacco is a legal industry, and there are regulations concerning many aspects of it. Tobacco may not be advertised on television, on radio or in newspapers, and tobacco may not sponsor cricket—I remember going to the John Player Special league in the old days when cricket was played on a Sunday. That has all stopped. I remember cigarettes being advertised on the back of parking meters in Westminster. We do not have parking meters any more, and parking meters certainly cannot be used to advertise cigarette manufacturers. I do not object to that because it is a habit that can cause serious diseases—that is very well established—and no one would argue to the contrary, but if the Government wish to make cigarettes illegal, they should simply introduce a Bill and pass a law to make them illegal. They should not cut at the edges; they should determine that smoking is a habit that is so dangerous and so deleterious to health that it should be banned. If the Government decided to do that, we could have the argument full throttle as to whether such a ban is an impingement on people’s liberties, or a reasonable thing to do.I remember a leader in The Times many years ago that said, perhaps, “‘England free’, not ‘England sober,’ but do you say ‘England free’ rather than ‘England cancer- free’?” That was a very good leader. This is not a simple decision, but it is a question of asking the Government to provide clarity in respect of lawful industries. I would say the same of those industries that are using sugar. They are doing lawful things, and if the Government are to impinge upon them they ought to do so in an entirely fair manner and not a deliberately detrimental one. The Government must introduce broader legislation to cover all those aspects.Cigarettes are the most obvious example, but there are also some types of drink. For example, there is absinthe, a very strong and potent drink that was drunk before the first world war by French artists, primarily. Interestingly, it was banned in 1914, at the beginning of the war, because it was so damaging to people, but was made legal again under the previous Government. Now that it is legal, it would be odd for the Government to start attacking it again. An active decision was made to legalise a particularly dangerous and enormously strong drink. In my view, it was a rather eccentric decision, but it was made, and having made it and exercised that authority the Government should treat that drink fairly along with other drinks; alternatively, new laws should be introduced to deal with it.My aim is to try to ensure that those in government behave reasonably towards businesses that are acting lawfully. There may be many businesses doing things that people, individually, do not like. There may be activities that one faintly disapproves of, thinks are disagreeable or would like not to happen, but it is not right for the power of Government—that might, that fist—to come crashing down on such businesses without a specific law. That should not be included vaguely, in a clause of a Bill. That is why I have tabled amendment 40, to add a provision at the end of a variety of important things that I am quite happy with, to ensure that the powers are not abused.I will move on to my amendment 41, which is to the part of clause 1 that currently reads as follows:“ensure that the health service is a public service which delivers services of general economic interest and operates on the basis of social solidarity”.I have covered the point about social solidarity, which is the subject of amendment 39. Amendment 41 would replace the words “general economic interest” with“that ensures value for money”.Why do I want to do that? I wondered what it could possibly mean to deliver services of general economic interest. Indeed, I was deeply suspicious of what that might mean, because I thought it might mean that to treat a teenager was more important than to treat an octogenarian, and I wondered whether that could possibly be right. Should we really discriminate about how health care and health services are delivered on the basis of general economic interest?I was surprised that a clause written by the hon. Member for Eltham should be so red-blooded in its capitalism—red-blooded in tooth and claw. It says that health care should be given according to general economic interest. So, if treating someone adds to GDP, that is great—off they can go to have their operation. But if it does not—if there is no economic advantage, or there is a continuing cost—it must be stopped. I am afraid that, in this context, I declare myself a woolly-minded liberal. I do not believe that the health service should be there purely for general economic interest. It has a wider calling than that; it has a broader calling to society. It is not about pounds, shillings and pence—although we have not had shillings and pence for many years; I meant that it is not about pounds and pence, although there is talk of abolishing the penny, so it will not even be pounds and pence for very much longer. But we want to ensure that the health service is there for need, not for money, and not to add to economic interest.If we were to say that the health service delivered services of general economic interest, that could lead to all sorts of things. I have mentioned that it could give one type of person an operation but deprive another. It could therefore be very unfair on the elderly. As they make up a growing proportion of our population, I want to see them treated fairly. I want my older constituents to get the respect that is due to age. It may be that I am sentimental, but I value the whole concept of life, from its beginning to its end, not because of its economic consequence or economic value but because it is a gift of God and therefore precious. The clause is particularly ill-favoured to say that the health service should operate on a different basis. At what point would it be determined that care was no longer worth giving? At what point would it be determined that knee surgery was no longer— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.184
I am a great believer in having my cake and eating it, or eating my cake and having it. One should regularly try to do that, because life is too short not to. I will, however, explain exactly what I mean by“unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”and why that campaign was perfectly legitimate. It was warning people about a very dangerous disease. It was not telling them that walking up a few steps would make their heart a bit better; it was passing on a fact. I mentioned propaganda. I am against propaganda and things that do not have an element of truth within them. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.166
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his good intervention. Although I did not want unsolicited advice from the Minister, that was obviously helpful unsolicited advice. It was a cold-call intervention par excellence that has helped the debate along its way. It is exactly the point I was trying to make.The amendment talks about not spending public funds on propaganda, which I have covered. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.168
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I apologise for going too quickly through my speech. I could of course go back over some of the more salient points if that would help the Committee, if it has forgotten what I have said or was not listening in the first place. I thought the Minister covered the point so extraordinarily clearly. He said that it was not about telling people what to do; it was about providing information on facts. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.170
I think that is covered by what the amendment says. We disagree on this point. I am quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to make sedentary interventions, but I think the amendment is clear and a Secretary of State would understand what it meant. The differentiation is pretty clear. The Minister covered this and I thought I had: a notifiable disease of real seriousness, not just random advice or a cold call telling people how to change their behaviour, is of such an obviously different order of magnitude that it is covered. When we get home this evening, we will wait to see whether we get lots of cold calls from the Secretary of State. We will look forward to them and enjoy them. He might give us some tips about how to continue this debate on future days.I want to come to the point about discriminating against specific foodstuffs. I set out some of my argument in what I quoted from the Daily Mail, but it seems to me to be a judgment that it is not proper for the Government to make. They cannot really say that we ought to eat bananas and ought not to eat sugar, because in five years’ time they will be telling us that bananas are bad for us. I actually think that bananas are loathsome. I have never liked them, so if the Government told me that I should eat bananas, I would find it difficult to obey. Even if the Minister himself wrote out a prescription telling me that I should eat bananas, I would find it difficult to oblige him. That is not what Governments should be doing. They should allow consumers free choice.I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that free choice often encompasses information—the more information one has, the better—but does it not fall back on to consumers to demand it? They should say, “I want to know: what is in this banana?  What is in this Creme Egg? What is in this Appletise?” or whatever it is—Babycham is a famous drink made just outside my constituency in Shepton Mallet that was very fashionable in the 1960s; I must confess that it slightly predates even me. People might ask for such notices about what those things contained, rather than it all having to be prescribed and the Government deciding what they liked and did not like. I hope I have made the point clearly: they get it wrong.The final part of the amendment says, without the split infinitive, which we are all applauding, “nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”. This House, Parliament and Government—the forces of law making in this country—have the ability to decide that certain things that are legal should be illegal, or that certain things that are illegal should be legal. That is what we are here to do. We are not here to decide that things that are legal are only semi-legal by edict. That strikes me as an improper way to behave.With your indulgence, Mr Bone, at this point I come to plain paper packaging, because it is immediately relevant. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.172
Will you forgive me, Mr Bone, if I say that that was an “eggcellent” point? Or perhaps it was an “eggregious” interruption of my flow; an “eggsample” to us all. I think that is enough of that.No—that was desperate, terrible advice. It did terrible damage to the egg industry because the Government did not really know enough. They bungled it, telling us we should not eat perfectly good eggs. We have had a terrible scare about eggs ever since. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.174
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry to diverge from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, which is a rare event because I like to follow in the tracks that he lays out for me, but when we were told not to eat eggs because they were all stuffed full of salmonella, it turned out that, actually, a lot of eggs were not; that if they were cooked for a little while, they would not be stuffed full of any salmonella; and that even if someone has soft scrambled egg, which is much nicer than rubbery old scrambled egg, which I very much deprecate, they will be fine. I read somewhere that now they are even saying that most expectant mothers can have soft scrambled egg without taking an undue risk. Such advice comes in an atmosphere of panic and urgency, but it is fundamentally rotten. Oh—sorry to have said rotten in the context of eggs; that was not deliberate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.176
I hope so. Perhaps it is the duty of what used to be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to start telling us that foodstuffs are safe and are not subject to avian flu. I do not want that to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health because, although my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is right—dare I say that his point is almost a curate’s egg because it was good in parts?—the wrong Ministry is going to have that authority, which is why I want to take it away from the Department of Health. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.178
It’s not my final point. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.180
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I think it is for the Food Standards Agency to determine whether food is fit for human consumption and to advise accordingly. That aspect is covered by a separate and different Government body, and the Food Standards Agency basically implements European regulations anyway, so my point that it should not be the Secretary of State for Health stands. I make that differentiation because the overall push from the Department of Health is to regulate our lives further. The occasions when things turn out to be all right are relatively rare. Therefore, I would rather that those responsibilities were with other people and other bodies, so that they do not spread and get a bit of leeway that allows them to creep into a mousehole of regulation, and then build a cave of regulation behind it. I would therefore limit this power.I turn to the phrase“nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”.I have never been a smoker. I have never wanted to smoke, and I have no views on whether it is a habit in which others should indulge. I am well aware that smoking is unhealthy. It is a dangerous habit; none the less, it is a legal industry. It is an industry that is subject to— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.182
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, because that is exactly what I am trying to do. I said “any lawful industry” because my point is much broader than plain packaging. Although plain packaging is not my specific point, it is a side part of it.Tobacco is a legal industry, and there are regulations concerning many aspects of it. Tobacco may not be advertised on television, on radio or in newspapers, and tobacco may not sponsor cricket—I remember going to the John Player Special league in the old days when cricket was played on a Sunday. That has all stopped. I remember cigarettes being advertised on the back of parking meters in Westminster. We do not have parking meters any more, and parking meters certainly cannot be used to advertise cigarette manufacturers. I do not object to that because it is a habit that can cause serious diseases—that is very well established—and no one would argue to the contrary, but if the Government wish to make cigarettes illegal, they should simply introduce a Bill and pass a law to make them illegal. They should not cut at the edges; they should determine that smoking is a habit that is so dangerous and so deleterious to health that it should be banned. If the Government decided to do that, we could have the argument full throttle as to whether such a ban is an impingement on people’s liberties, or a reasonable thing to do.I remember a leader in The Times many years ago that said, perhaps, “‘England free’, not ‘England sober,’ but do you say ‘England free’ rather than ‘England cancer- free’?” That was a very good leader. This is not a simple decision, but it is a question of asking the Government to provide clarity in respect of lawful industries. I would say the same of those industries that are using sugar. They are doing lawful things, and if the Government are to impinge upon them they ought to do so in an entirely fair manner and not a deliberately detrimental one. The Government must introduce broader legislation to cover all those aspects.Cigarettes are the most obvious example, but there are also some types of drink. For example, there is absinthe, a very strong and potent drink that was drunk before the first world war by French artists, primarily. Interestingly, it was banned in 1914, at the beginning of the war, because it was so damaging to people, but was made legal again under the previous Government. Now that it is legal, it would be odd for the Government to start attacking it again. An active decision was made to legalise a particularly dangerous and enormously strong drink. In my view, it was a rather eccentric decision, but it was made, and having made it and exercised that authority the Government should treat that drink fairly along with other drinks; alternatively, new laws should be introduced to deal with it.My aim is to try to ensure that those in government behave reasonably towards businesses that are acting lawfully. There may be many businesses doing things that people, individually, do not like. There may be activities that one faintly disapproves of, thinks are disagreeable or would like not to happen, but it is not right for the power of Government—that might, that fist—to come crashing down on such businesses without a specific law. That should not be included vaguely, in a clause of a Bill. That is why I have tabled amendment 40, to add a provision at the end of a variety of important things that I am quite happy with, to ensure that the powers are not abused.I will move on to my amendment 41, which is to the part of clause 1 that currently reads as follows:“ensure that the health service is a public service which delivers services of general economic interest and operates on the basis of social solidarity”.I have covered the point about social solidarity, which is the subject of amendment 39. Amendment 41 would replace the words “general economic interest” with“that ensures value for money”.Why do I want to do that? I wondered what it could possibly mean to deliver services of general economic interest. Indeed, I was deeply suspicious of what that might mean, because I thought it might mean that to treat a teenager was more important than to treat an octogenarian, and I wondered whether that could possibly be right. Should we really discriminate about how health care and health services are delivered on the basis of general economic interest?I was surprised that a clause written by the hon. Member for Eltham should be so red-blooded in its capitalism—red-blooded in tooth and claw. It says that health care should be given according to general economic interest. So, if treating someone adds to GDP, that is great—off they can go to have their operation. But if it does not—if there is no economic advantage, or there is a continuing cost—it must be stopped. I am afraid that, in this context, I declare myself a woolly-minded liberal. I do not believe that the health service should be there purely for general economic interest. It has a wider calling than that; it has a broader calling to society. It is not about pounds, shillings and pence—although we have not had shillings and pence for many years; I meant that it is not about pounds and pence, although there is talk of abolishing the penny, so it will not even be pounds and pence for very much longer. But we want to ensure that the health service is there for need, not for money, and not to add to economic interest.If we were to say that the health service delivered services of general economic interest, that could lead to all sorts of things. I have mentioned that it could give one type of person an operation but deprive another. It could therefore be very unfair on the elderly. As they make up a growing proportion of our population, I want to see them treated fairly. I want my older constituents to get the respect that is due to age. It may be that I am sentimental, but I value the whole concept of life, from its beginning to its end, not because of its economic consequence or economic value but because it is a gift of God and therefore precious. The clause is particularly ill-favoured to say that the health service should operate on a different basis. At what point would it be determined that care was no longer worth giving? At what point would it be determined that knee surgery was no longer— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.184
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for saving us from debating the European Union. Otherwise, I would have to go on a great deal and I am doing my best on this occasion to be brief, as I am sure everyone realises. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.149
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for your comment and advice. This amendment is fundamentally different from the one before. It is much sterner because it concerns the expenditure of public funds, whereas the previous amendment did not. It concerns public funds on propaganda, and it is important to determine what propaganda is. What do I mean by propaganda? We think, of course, of the Soviet Union and how it approached propaganda. It had Pravda and Izvestiya to put out the line that the Government wished people to follow and believe. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.152
The Daily Mail is not propaganda; it is a journal of truth and record, much enjoyed—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, but let us not go through journalists working in government; that is not necessarily relevant to the topic under discussion. I am sorry, Mr Bone, that your interruption prevented me from making a joke about the Diet of Worms, but I have now briefly got it in.Do we really want the Government to spend money on the British equivalent of Izvestiya? If we go back to the time of Canning, he spent a good deal of Government funds on paying cartoonists to provide the cartoons that ridiculed his political opponents. That was par for the course. It happens that the Tories were much better at paying for propaganda than the Whigs were at the time. It was an effective way to get the Government message across. In those days, the Government had access to special slush funds, effectively, which they could use to fund cartoonists and writers who they liked, so that they could indulge in the political discussions of the time.A much smaller Government existed in those days. The Government’s spending, as a percentage of GDP, was—I think—around the 10% level, excluding wartime expenditure, so it was much more limited. Now, the NHS has a budget in the order of magnitude of £110 billion. That is a phenomenal amount and it would not be difficult— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.154
Thank you very much, Mr Bone.As I was saying, this huge budget that the NHS has—£110 billion—and the expenses that there are in Richmond House alone mean that there is a lot of money about for propaganda, if it is needed, and for employing PR people, press people, people to put out stories right, left and centre, and people who can make us worry about one thing and then another. It may be what we eat; it may be diseases that are going to get us. It may be general things that help the Government in their election process, because propaganda— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.156
We would never do that. I heard an, “Oh no” from my right hon. Friend. Absolutely—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would not dream of doing any such thing. But it is not impossible that a Government less benign than the one we have today—I am looking at no one specifically on the Opposition Benches—would behave in a way that used the funds available for propaganda. Therefore, I want specifically to prohibit the use of that money for propaganda.Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be entitled or required to provide advice to direct people in their personal conduct. He could still make speeches in the House of Commons saying that people  might be better off if they had less sugar, or ate more butter, as we now discover that butter is so good for us, but it would prevent him from giving orders. It is orders that are important. We do not want a Secretary of State sitting there in his ivory tower, sending down commands: “Thus saith the Health Secretary, for three potatoes, and for four. I shall not traduce the punishment”, to misquote the Book of Amos— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.158
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she quite rightly identifies a very difficult area—where the balance should be struck, and who the Government should be looking after. I do not think that it is practical for the Government to look after people who are liquidising McDonald’s meals to give to their babies. If people are doing those sorts of thing, however many instructions come from the Secretary of State, that will not change. What we need is local advice that encourages people locally, and we need communities and families to help.Therefore, where I disagree with the hon. Lady is that the choice about what children eat and the standards of what they are given to eat belongs to parents, because parents have the best interests of their children at heart. Parents know—I think they know, according to their discretion—when it is a good idea to give their children a chocolate bar and when it is not. They do not need the Secretary of State for Health’s advice—or more importantly, because I was talking about it, direction—on these matters.There will always be hard cases, but the problem with quoting the hard cases and then demanding more regulation is that, at that point, the Government have to intervene in every aspect of our lives and have to lead our lives for us, to protect that one person who does something really fundamentally silly. But those people are few and far between and need their communities and families to help them, because it seems to me unlikely that they will listen to the Whitehall bureaucrat instead.Where do we want responsibility to lie? I want it to lie at the local and immediate level, not at the higher, directed level. I absolutely see what the hon. Lady is saying; her point is important, and it is at the nub, in some ways, of where she and I will disagree on many issues, because it is the basis of one’s concept of the state. Do we see the state as a benign influence, directing the collective, that  will help and guide people in their behaviour, or do we see it as an institution made up of individuals who are responsible for their own behaviour? I absolutely accept that the collective view is a respectable one to take, but it is not mine, and I have therefore tabled amendments—this is not the first time that I have done so—to reinforce individuals and their families and to remove authority from the state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.160
I very much accept that the protection of liberty applies to adults and that there is a right to greater involvement in the lives of children. That is absolutely classic liberalism; it is the view of John Stuart Mill, among others, that the state’s responsibilities in relation to children differ from those in relation to adults—I would not begin to dispute that. The protection of children from irresponsible adults is an example where the state may have to intervene, but that falls under the Department for Education, which is why the Department has been doing so much in response to matters of adoption, fostering and so on. So, yes, of course I accept that the state is entitled to have a different set of regulations for children from those that it has for adults and that the objective should be to maximise adults’ ability to take decisions for themselves and to interfere with families who are not looking after their children when that has gone beyond a certain point, but I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Bill to do that. That is why I would prohibit the Secretary of State from directing people in their personal conduct.What do I mean by “unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”? As I was saying about butter, such unsolicited advice is not always right, and there is a great responsibility on the Government to be cautious about what they tell people to do and how they tell them to behave, because the evidence changes. For example, how much exercise should be taken? I saw recently that if people run at over 7 mph they do more damage to their health than if they run more slowly. I do not think I could run at 7 mph if I was being chased by a demon, so my health in that respect will probably remain pretty good; but I do not think the Government can be secure enough in what they say to issue advice to people on their personal behaviour.We have already discussed drinking and smoking. On smoking, it is so well known, and has been for so long— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.162
I am grateful, Mr Bone. But on the general issue of behaviour, that does not just mean the use of substances. It might mean exercise. It might mean the structure of one’s life. It might mean how many hours one sleeps. As we are looking forward to having a night free of sleep and of torpor and of indolence, but one of work and energy and zest, as we discuss these matters, I would not want the Secretary of State to come wandering in and say, “No, we must have our little snoozette,” interrupting business, because that is his decision to direct our behaviour.The Chairman looks upset about the word “snoozette”. Perhaps he would prefer me to say nap, which, for the record, does not come from that Frenchman I was talking about earlier, Mr Buonaparte. It predates him and can be found in many dictionaries.The amendment states that there should be no“unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”,and that is basically to stop cold calling. My professional business has been in financial services—I am happy to direct people to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and one of the things that the Financial Conduct Authority is particularly hot on is cold calling. It is not contradictory that it is hot on cold calling: that makes for lukewarm calling. It dislikes and disproves of cold calling, and that is what I mean by “unsolicited advice”. I do not want to go home and suddenly discover that the Secretary of State is ringing up and saying, “Mr Rees-Mogg”—we are probably all frightfully matey now, so it would be “Jacob, I do not think you should walk up the stairs so quickly”, or, “I would have a bit more tonic in that gin and tonic if I were you.” If the Minister called me, it would be a pleasure to hear from him. Let me put on the record that there would be joy in the Rees-Mogg household if that happened, so long as he did not start telling me through an unsolicited cold call what I should be doing for the improvement of my health or asking me to send him a report the next day. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.164
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for saving us from debating the European Union. Otherwise, I would have to go on a great deal and I am doing my best on this occasion to be brief, as I am sure everyone realises. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.149
I am grateful to you, Mr Bone, for your comment and advice. This amendment is fundamentally different from the one before. It is much sterner because it concerns the expenditure of public funds, whereas the previous amendment did not. It concerns public funds on propaganda, and it is important to determine what propaganda is. What do I mean by propaganda? We think, of course, of the Soviet Union and how it approached propaganda. It had Pravda and Izvestiya to put out the line that the Government wished people to follow and believe. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.152
The Daily Mail is not propaganda; it is a journal of truth and record, much enjoyed—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, but let us not go through journalists working in government; that is not necessarily relevant to the topic under discussion. I am sorry, Mr Bone, that your interruption prevented me from making a joke about the Diet of Worms, but I have now briefly got it in.Do we really want the Government to spend money on the British equivalent of Izvestiya? If we go back to the time of Canning, he spent a good deal of Government funds on paying cartoonists to provide the cartoons that ridiculed his political opponents. That was par for the course. It happens that the Tories were much better at paying for propaganda than the Whigs were at the time. It was an effective way to get the Government message across. In those days, the Government had access to special slush funds, effectively, which they could use to fund cartoonists and writers who they liked, so that they could indulge in the political discussions of the time.A much smaller Government existed in those days. The Government’s spending, as a percentage of GDP, was—I think—around the 10% level, excluding wartime expenditure, so it was much more limited. Now, the NHS has a budget in the order of magnitude of £110 billion. That is a phenomenal amount and it would not be difficult— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.154
Thank you very much, Mr Bone.As I was saying, this huge budget that the NHS has—£110 billion—and the expenses that there are in Richmond House alone mean that there is a lot of money about for propaganda, if it is needed, and for employing PR people, press people, people to put out stories right, left and centre, and people who can make us worry about one thing and then another. It may be what we eat; it may be diseases that are going to get us. It may be general things that help the Government in their election process, because propaganda— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.156
We would never do that. I heard an, “Oh no” from my right hon. Friend. Absolutely—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would not dream of doing any such thing. But it is not impossible that a Government less benign than the one we have today—I am looking at no one specifically on the Opposition Benches—would behave in a way that used the funds available for propaganda. Therefore, I want specifically to prohibit the use of that money for propaganda.Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be entitled or required to provide advice to direct people in their personal conduct. He could still make speeches in the House of Commons saying that people  might be better off if they had less sugar, or ate more butter, as we now discover that butter is so good for us, but it would prevent him from giving orders. It is orders that are important. We do not want a Secretary of State sitting there in his ivory tower, sending down commands: “Thus saith the Health Secretary, for three potatoes, and for four. I shall not traduce the punishment”, to misquote the Book of Amos— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.158
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she quite rightly identifies a very difficult area—where the balance should be struck, and who the Government should be looking after. I do not think that it is practical for the Government to look after people who are liquidising McDonald’s meals to give to their babies. If people are doing those sorts of thing, however many instructions come from the Secretary of State, that will not change. What we need is local advice that encourages people locally, and we need communities and families to help.Therefore, where I disagree with the hon. Lady is that the choice about what children eat and the standards of what they are given to eat belongs to parents, because parents have the best interests of their children at heart. Parents know—I think they know, according to their discretion—when it is a good idea to give their children a chocolate bar and when it is not. They do not need the Secretary of State for Health’s advice—or more importantly, because I was talking about it, direction—on these matters.There will always be hard cases, but the problem with quoting the hard cases and then demanding more regulation is that, at that point, the Government have to intervene in every aspect of our lives and have to lead our lives for us, to protect that one person who does something really fundamentally silly. But those people are few and far between and need their communities and families to help them, because it seems to me unlikely that they will listen to the Whitehall bureaucrat instead.Where do we want responsibility to lie? I want it to lie at the local and immediate level, not at the higher, directed level. I absolutely see what the hon. Lady is saying; her point is important, and it is at the nub, in some ways, of where she and I will disagree on many issues, because it is the basis of one’s concept of the state. Do we see the state as a benign influence, directing the collective, that  will help and guide people in their behaviour, or do we see it as an institution made up of individuals who are responsible for their own behaviour? I absolutely accept that the collective view is a respectable one to take, but it is not mine, and I have therefore tabled amendments—this is not the first time that I have done so—to reinforce individuals and their families and to remove authority from the state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.160
I very much accept that the protection of liberty applies to adults and that there is a right to greater involvement in the lives of children. That is absolutely classic liberalism; it is the view of John Stuart Mill, among others, that the state’s responsibilities in relation to children differ from those in relation to adults—I would not begin to dispute that. The protection of children from irresponsible adults is an example where the state may have to intervene, but that falls under the Department for Education, which is why the Department has been doing so much in response to matters of adoption, fostering and so on. So, yes, of course I accept that the state is entitled to have a different set of regulations for children from those that it has for adults and that the objective should be to maximise adults’ ability to take decisions for themselves and to interfere with families who are not looking after their children when that has gone beyond a certain point, but I do not believe it is the responsibility of the Bill to do that. That is why I would prohibit the Secretary of State from directing people in their personal conduct.What do I mean by “unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”? As I was saying about butter, such unsolicited advice is not always right, and there is a great responsibility on the Government to be cautious about what they tell people to do and how they tell them to behave, because the evidence changes. For example, how much exercise should be taken? I saw recently that if people run at over 7 mph they do more damage to their health than if they run more slowly. I do not think I could run at 7 mph if I was being chased by a demon, so my health in that respect will probably remain pretty good; but I do not think the Government can be secure enough in what they say to issue advice to people on their personal behaviour.We have already discussed drinking and smoking. On smoking, it is so well known, and has been for so long— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.162
I am grateful, Mr Bone. But on the general issue of behaviour, that does not just mean the use of substances. It might mean exercise. It might mean the structure of one’s life. It might mean how many hours one sleeps. As we are looking forward to having a night free of sleep and of torpor and of indolence, but one of work and energy and zest, as we discuss these matters, I would not want the Secretary of State to come wandering in and say, “No, we must have our little snoozette,” interrupting business, because that is his decision to direct our behaviour.The Chairman looks upset about the word “snoozette”. Perhaps he would prefer me to say nap, which, for the record, does not come from that Frenchman I was talking about earlier, Mr Buonaparte. It predates him and can be found in many dictionaries.The amendment states that there should be no“unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour”,and that is basically to stop cold calling. My professional business has been in financial services—I am happy to direct people to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and one of the things that the Financial Conduct Authority is particularly hot on is cold calling. It is not contradictory that it is hot on cold calling: that makes for lukewarm calling. It dislikes and disproves of cold calling, and that is what I mean by “unsolicited advice”. I do not want to go home and suddenly discover that the Secretary of State is ringing up and saying, “Mr Rees-Mogg”—we are probably all frightfully matey now, so it would be “Jacob, I do not think you should walk up the stairs so quickly”, or, “I would have a bit more tonic in that gin and tonic if I were you.” If the Minister called me, it would be a pleasure to hear from him. Let me put on the record that there would be joy in the Rees-Mogg household if that happened, so long as he did not start telling me through an unsolicited cold call what I should be doing for the improvement of my health or asking me to send him a report the next day. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.164
The tractor sign that may be put on food that comes from Somerset and is produced in accordance with certain requirements is voluntary, not compulsory. If my right hon. Friend really wants the Secretary of State to change food labelling, he will need an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972, because it is regrettably a European competence.I am saying that we should have no further domestic regulation because there is a higher level of regulation that is already interfering. If the day comes when we have a glorious negotiation with the European Union and regain the power to determine regulation ourselves, the Bill could be amended. We might allow some limited regulation that is purely informative—I would have no objection to that. I am in favour of knowledge; it is to be encouraged. People should be allowed to have information that enables them to make choices freely. However, I am against hectoring, bossy regulation that makes things more difficult.People broadly know that fizzy drinks or sweet drinks contain sugar. It has been widely reported, and I am not sure that we should place an extra burden on manufacturers and distributers to say that there is sugar in those products. I accept that there may be a point in doing so with fruit juices which are deemed to be healthy and turn out to be basically sugar, but that is a particular exception, and I would not allow one exception to open the floodgates of regulation for everything else.It is like sleeping pills that can be bought over the counter, which I buy if I am taking long flights—I think the pills are called Nytol or Sleepeaze—that have a little notice on them that says that they may cause drowsiness. It seems to me that to require an over-the-counter sleeping product to say that it may cause drowsiness is to assume that the British people are stupid. I do not think they are stupid; I think they are highly intelligent. If they are buying Nytol or Sleepeaze—it is Boots’ own brand, and it is much cheaper than Nytol, which is why I tend to go for it—it is because they are hoping to go to sleep. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish looks as if he wants to intervene. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.129
An obvious alteration can be made to my name to make it Rees-Mogadon. No doubt, by the end of today’s proceedings, some Opposition Members may think that that is only too appropriate. In which case, I apologise. [ Interruption. ] I am cut to the quick. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.131
Thank you, Mr Bone. I add that I hold no candle either for Boots or for the owners of Cadbury, a pretty dreadful firm that closed a factory in my constituency, having promised that it would not, and that was condemned in a report by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for its outrageous, shocking and dishonest behaviour after I brought a complaint. That was before I was elected to Parliament. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.134
I am sorry, Mr Bone. Interests are an important subject to cover. I have no interest, although I do get given a lot of creme eggs, it must be said, having made public my liking for them. I do not say that in the hope of getting any more. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.136
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I thought he was concerned that the fruit content was so high, because he would prefer a more sugary drink without any dangerous fruit in it, but clearly that was not the case.I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. As I said, I am in favour of knowledge, but not of bossy regulation. I tend to think “caveat emptor”—let the buyer beware. If he took the drink and spat it out because it was disgusting, that seems quite good enough; if, on the other hand, he swigged it back and thought, “Well, that was jolly tasty,” that is also fair enough, but it is a matter for the market to work out. It is a matter of commercial judgment by individuals who are intelligent. We must have faith in the people of the United Kingdom, and in this specific context, the English people, to make decisions for themselves. That is why it is so important to have the caveat— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.138
I contest “additional”. There is plenty of regulation in that area that covers such issues. We have regulation in place. We really do not need to go further down the regulatory road in light of the powers given to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.140
The clause gives the Secretary of State a general power. He“must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.142
I am grateful, Mr Bone. Without any additional regulatory burden, the Secretary of State would not have the power to increase regulations on the hard-pressed British people. That is a general power being given in clause 1, and I wish to limit it. I wish to restrict it, and to some extent I wish to stop it. I want us to retain our ancient liberties, and I want regulation to be stopped. Government after Government say that they want to get rid of regulation. They want to roll back the regulation that comes out of Ministries and Europe. Government after Government do not do so. This Government have done it on domestic regulation, but European regulation carries on. There is nothing that can be done to stop it under our current arrangements. Let us take charge of this where we can, put our money where our mouth is and legislate to limit the flow of regulation, as I seek to do in amendment 37.That leads on to amendment 40. Clause 1 amends the National Health Service Act 2006 with proposed new section 1, which deals with“ the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”My amendment would add,“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda, nor to discriminate against specific foodstuffs, nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry;”Hon. Members will notice that with the help of the Clerks, I managed to avoid a split infinitive in those last few words, which I am sure that the Committee is delighted by. Those words,“detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”,would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on plain paper packaging by the law of implied repeal. That was deliberately put in with that in mind. Despite what you said earlier, Mr Bone, I hope that I may mention that because it is pertinent to this clause.Why do I want to limit the power of the Secretary of State to do us good, to be kind and thoughtful, or to send us merrily on our way with his good advice? I hope  the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton will forgive a further product placement but the Daily Mail has a headline today on page 1 that reads, “Butter isn’t bad for you after all: Major study says 80s advice on dairy fats was flawed.” The article continues:“Guidelines that told millions of people to avoid butter and full-fat milk should never have been introduced, say experts. The startling assertion challenges advice that has been followed by the medical profession for 30 years. The experts say the advice from 1983, aimed at reducing deaths from heart disease, lacked any solid trial evidence to back it up. The guidelines—the first of their kind—were introduced when as much as one-fifth of the average British diet was saturated fat such as butter, cream and fattier cuts of meat. Britons were advised by an official dietary committee to cut their fat intake to 30 per cent of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10 per cent, while increasing the amount of carbohydrate they ate. This led food makers to create low-fat spreads”—which are disgusting. That is not in the Daily Mail; that is my comment. The article continues,“including cholesterol-lowering products, while consumers shunned cheese, milk and cream. However, now some scientists even say the advice is responsible—in part—for the obesity crisis because it encouraged an increase in carbohydrate in our diets.”This is why I want to stop advice being dished out, because it might be wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.145
My right hon. Friend is deeply flattering. Coming from a dairy farming part of the world, it comes as no surprise to me how good dairy products are for you. My constituents and farmers in North East Somerset have enjoyed their butter, cream and milk for generations. They are as healthy and fine a people as found anywhere in the world. I would certainly say that one man from Somerset is worth 10 Frenchmen, but that is probably widely accepted. This is because of their butter and cream. That is one of those things that was obvious to everybody other than the experts.Let me continue because this review is important:“A new review says evidence from trials did not support the advice. It says it is ‘incomprehensible’ that such advice was introduced for 56 million Britons in 1983 and 220 million Americans six years earlier ‘given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men’.”They were probably Members of Parliament; you never know. It continues:“‘The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.’”It concludes:“However, many public health and nutrition scientists criticised the conclusions of the review”.Well, they would, wouldn’t they? They are now looking pretty silly because they have been telling us all this stuff about butter being bad for us when it is not; it is good for us. Eat more butter, Mr Bone; it is good for you and it will be good for the farmers in my constituency.Another point worth mentioning from the article is that“a US research scientist called for a campaign telling people they had been taken down the ‘wrong dietary road for decades’ in avoiding saturated fat while not being warned about eating too  much carbohydrate… A key finding was that total saturated fat, whether measured in the diet or the bloodstream, showed no association with heart disease.”There is a wonderful chart in the Daily Mail showing the decline in whole milk drunk per head in the United Kingdom per week. It has gone; we are all drinking this horrid skimmed milk stuff rather than the much better, creamier milk. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because the experts said that whole milk was bad for us, but the experts are wrong.We have seen this with so many things. I remember being told when I was a child that I should only eat a small number of eggs a week. We can now eat as many eggs as we like. The Government do not know best and must be reined in because they will have us eat all sorts of terrible things if we take any notice of them. They will want us to eat lots of unpleasant vegetables and not the nice, simple ones that I like—the runner beans. I actually like Brussels sprouts, but I do not know that that is particularly informative. They are not universally popular, but I do not think that my liking of a Brussels sprout should be enforced across the country at large.There should be a freedom to eat Brussels sprouts. [Interruption.] I know that they are “Brussels” sprouts, but they are none the less grown in England. There is nothing unpatriotic about a Brussels sprout. It is merely named in its honour. It does not worry me, though it does remind me of our rather ineffective campaign in the 1989 European elections, when we said, “Don’t have a diet of Brussels.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.147
The tractor sign that may be put on food that comes from Somerset and is produced in accordance with certain requirements is voluntary, not compulsory. If my right hon. Friend really wants the Secretary of State to change food labelling, he will need an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972, because it is regrettably a European competence.I am saying that we should have no further domestic regulation because there is a higher level of regulation that is already interfering. If the day comes when we have a glorious negotiation with the European Union and regain the power to determine regulation ourselves, the Bill could be amended. We might allow some limited regulation that is purely informative—I would have no objection to that. I am in favour of knowledge; it is to be encouraged. People should be allowed to have information that enables them to make choices freely. However, I am against hectoring, bossy regulation that makes things more difficult.People broadly know that fizzy drinks or sweet drinks contain sugar. It has been widely reported, and I am not sure that we should place an extra burden on manufacturers and distributers to say that there is sugar in those products. I accept that there may be a point in doing so with fruit juices which are deemed to be healthy and turn out to be basically sugar, but that is a particular exception, and I would not allow one exception to open the floodgates of regulation for everything else.It is like sleeping pills that can be bought over the counter, which I buy if I am taking long flights—I think the pills are called Nytol or Sleepeaze—that have a little notice on them that says that they may cause drowsiness. It seems to me that to require an over-the-counter sleeping product to say that it may cause drowsiness is to assume that the British people are stupid. I do not think they are stupid; I think they are highly intelligent. If they are buying Nytol or Sleepeaze—it is Boots’ own brand, and it is much cheaper than Nytol, which is why I tend to go for it—it is because they are hoping to go to sleep. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish looks as if he wants to intervene. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.129
An obvious alteration can be made to my name to make it Rees-Mogadon. No doubt, by the end of today’s proceedings, some Opposition Members may think that that is only too appropriate. In which case, I apologise. [ Interruption. ] I am cut to the quick. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.131
Thank you, Mr Bone. I add that I hold no candle either for Boots or for the owners of Cadbury, a pretty dreadful firm that closed a factory in my constituency, having promised that it would not, and that was condemned in a report by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for its outrageous, shocking and dishonest behaviour after I brought a complaint. That was before I was elected to Parliament. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.134
I am sorry, Mr Bone. Interests are an important subject to cover. I have no interest, although I do get given a lot of creme eggs, it must be said, having made public my liking for them. I do not say that in the hope of getting any more. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.136
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I thought he was concerned that the fruit content was so high, because he would prefer a more sugary drink without any dangerous fruit in it, but clearly that was not the case.I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. As I said, I am in favour of knowledge, but not of bossy regulation. I tend to think “caveat emptor”—let the buyer beware. If he took the drink and spat it out because it was disgusting, that seems quite good enough; if, on the other hand, he swigged it back and thought, “Well, that was jolly tasty,” that is also fair enough, but it is a matter for the market to work out. It is a matter of commercial judgment by individuals who are intelligent. We must have faith in the people of the United Kingdom, and in this specific context, the English people, to make decisions for themselves. That is why it is so important to have the caveat— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.138
I contest “additional”. There is plenty of regulation in that area that covers such issues. We have regulation in place. We really do not need to go further down the regulatory road in light of the powers given to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.140
The clause gives the Secretary of State a general power. He“must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.142
I am grateful, Mr Bone. Without any additional regulatory burden, the Secretary of State would not have the power to increase regulations on the hard-pressed British people. That is a general power being given in clause 1, and I wish to limit it. I wish to restrict it, and to some extent I wish to stop it. I want us to retain our ancient liberties, and I want regulation to be stopped. Government after Government say that they want to get rid of regulation. They want to roll back the regulation that comes out of Ministries and Europe. Government after Government do not do so. This Government have done it on domestic regulation, but European regulation carries on. There is nothing that can be done to stop it under our current arrangements. Let us take charge of this where we can, put our money where our mouth is and legislate to limit the flow of regulation, as I seek to do in amendment 37.That leads on to amendment 40. Clause 1 amends the National Health Service Act 2006 with proposed new section 1, which deals with“ the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”My amendment would add,“nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda, nor to discriminate against specific foodstuffs, nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry;”Hon. Members will notice that with the help of the Clerks, I managed to avoid a split infinitive in those last few words, which I am sure that the Committee is delighted by. Those words,“detrimentally to affect any lawful industry”,would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on plain paper packaging by the law of implied repeal. That was deliberately put in with that in mind. Despite what you said earlier, Mr Bone, I hope that I may mention that because it is pertinent to this clause.Why do I want to limit the power of the Secretary of State to do us good, to be kind and thoughtful, or to send us merrily on our way with his good advice? I hope  the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton will forgive a further product placement but the Daily Mail has a headline today on page 1 that reads, “Butter isn’t bad for you after all: Major study says 80s advice on dairy fats was flawed.” The article continues:“Guidelines that told millions of people to avoid butter and full-fat milk should never have been introduced, say experts. The startling assertion challenges advice that has been followed by the medical profession for 30 years. The experts say the advice from 1983, aimed at reducing deaths from heart disease, lacked any solid trial evidence to back it up. The guidelines—the first of their kind—were introduced when as much as one-fifth of the average British diet was saturated fat such as butter, cream and fattier cuts of meat. Britons were advised by an official dietary committee to cut their fat intake to 30 per cent of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10 per cent, while increasing the amount of carbohydrate they ate. This led food makers to create low-fat spreads”—which are disgusting. That is not in the Daily Mail; that is my comment. The article continues,“including cholesterol-lowering products, while consumers shunned cheese, milk and cream. However, now some scientists even say the advice is responsible—in part—for the obesity crisis because it encouraged an increase in carbohydrate in our diets.”This is why I want to stop advice being dished out, because it might be wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.145
My right hon. Friend is deeply flattering. Coming from a dairy farming part of the world, it comes as no surprise to me how good dairy products are for you. My constituents and farmers in North East Somerset have enjoyed their butter, cream and milk for generations. They are as healthy and fine a people as found anywhere in the world. I would certainly say that one man from Somerset is worth 10 Frenchmen, but that is probably widely accepted. This is because of their butter and cream. That is one of those things that was obvious to everybody other than the experts.Let me continue because this review is important:“A new review says evidence from trials did not support the advice. It says it is ‘incomprehensible’ that such advice was introduced for 56 million Britons in 1983 and 220 million Americans six years earlier ‘given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men’.”They were probably Members of Parliament; you never know. It continues:“‘The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.’”It concludes:“However, many public health and nutrition scientists criticised the conclusions of the review”.Well, they would, wouldn’t they? They are now looking pretty silly because they have been telling us all this stuff about butter being bad for us when it is not; it is good for us. Eat more butter, Mr Bone; it is good for you and it will be good for the farmers in my constituency.Another point worth mentioning from the article is that“a US research scientist called for a campaign telling people they had been taken down the ‘wrong dietary road for decades’ in avoiding saturated fat while not being warned about eating too  much carbohydrate… A key finding was that total saturated fat, whether measured in the diet or the bloodstream, showed no association with heart disease.”There is a wonderful chart in the Daily Mail showing the decline in whole milk drunk per head in the United Kingdom per week. It has gone; we are all drinking this horrid skimmed milk stuff rather than the much better, creamier milk. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because the experts said that whole milk was bad for us, but the experts are wrong.We have seen this with so many things. I remember being told when I was a child that I should only eat a small number of eggs a week. We can now eat as many eggs as we like. The Government do not know best and must be reined in because they will have us eat all sorts of terrible things if we take any notice of them. They will want us to eat lots of unpleasant vegetables and not the nice, simple ones that I like—the runner beans. I actually like Brussels sprouts, but I do not know that that is particularly informative. They are not universally popular, but I do not think that my liking of a Brussels sprout should be enforced across the country at large.There should be a freedom to eat Brussels sprouts. [Interruption.] I know that they are “Brussels” sprouts, but they are none the less grown in England. There is nothing unpatriotic about a Brussels sprout. It is merely named in its honour. It does not worry me, though it does remind me of our rather ineffective campaign in the 1989 European elections, when we said, “Don’t have a diet of Brussels.” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.147
I am very much in accordance with my hon. Friend’s views. The design to secure improvement seems to be giving too much power that is not just about information; it could be sheer bossiness, sending nurse around to confiscate the third bottle of port so that Pitt the Younger could not drink it. What fine speeches he made, inspired by drink.I must recall F. E. Smith, the late Lord Birkenhead in this context, who was a prodigious drinker. He would be practically slumped at dinner, unable to communicate with the people sitting next to him, but he would get up to speak and make the finest speeches anyone of his era made—almost certainly finer speeches, from all that one reads, than those of Winston Churchill. [Interruption.] I do not know whether Hansard picked up that helpful intervention: that was probably according to people who were pretty inebriated themselves.However, I am sure that there were some old sobersides there, some puritanical types and teetotallers, because there are such people. Was it not Nancy Astor who held up a glass of whisky, put worms in it and said, “What do you get if you put worms in whisky?” and someone called out, “Dead worms”? I believe that she was an ardent teetotaller, but she did not have the law behind her. She was doing that by example, persuasion and oratory, but not by edict.Here we open the way to edict. Those fine speeches of F. E. Smith and the fine leadership of Pitt the Younger and Churchill would have been lost. I cannot recall this perfectly, but Pitt the Younger said something about necessity being the plea of tyrants and the creed of slaves. That is what one gets: the feeling that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should have that power. Once he has that power, we become a downtrodden nation of serfs and slaves. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.111
It depends on what my right hon. Friend means by edicts. I have no objection to taxation on spirits, wine and cigarettes because the Government have to raise their money somehow or another and it is perfectly reasonable to get it in those areas. I am in favour of licensing laws, because there are other factors to consider: one needs to think about the neighbourhood and whether people who wish to enjoy their slumbers will be disturbed as others go around, inward and outward of their public houses, drunkenly causing a disturbance.There are places within the whole of society where some regulation and control may be necessary, but it is about that being the job of the Secretary of State for Health that perturbs me. The Secretary of State will be focused on what is good for people, and that is where I become very suspicious that the Secretary of State ought not to be giving such orders. In the other parts of regulation, the licensing laws will be dealt with by local authorities and the taxation laws by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is all fair and reasonable, but it is this level of edict that I dislike—hence“the liberties of the people of England”—and it may be worth adding at this point that the amendment would prevent, as is currently topical, the idiotic proposal to insist that cigarettes are sold in plain packaging. Several hon . Members rose— Jacob Rees-Mogg I am spoilt for choice. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.113
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Also, it is a question of authority. One should not encourage the Government too much to issue orders and instructions and to place adverts, because an awful lot of people instinctively disbelieve them, whereas they might believe their own physician. I think it is a bad idea for the Department of Health to issue edicts saying, “You will live a healthier life; you will live longer if you do this, that and the next thing,” because a lot of people are immediately suspicious of such advice. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.115
My right hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. There are cases where there is an urgent need for the Government to bring things to people’s attention, and that would not be precluded by my amendment. It is hard to see that an advert warning people not to die of ignorance could in any way be incompatible with our ancient liberties. I do not maintain that a part of our ancient liberties is the ancient liberty to die. I am not suggesting that that is a reasonable or rational position to take. The Government having responsibility when they know things that other people do not, and warning them of what may happen, is one thing. It would have been another thing had they decided to legislate about people’s private behaviour that might have put them at risk of getting AIDS. That would be an entirely separate matter, so it is about getting the balance right, which I do not think the clause as currently written does. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.117
It would be a privilege for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to answer—he is very knowledgeable in such matters—but as far as those boards identify the needs of communities and promote solutions to health needs, that is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. If they exceed their brief and tell people how to live their lives, that is not a reasonable thing to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.119
That is an exceptionally good point. Medical necessity is not a case of the Government insisting that something is necessary and therefore has to be done to someone; it is the Government saying that if someone has that necessity and asks for it, it will be funded for them. It is a different type of necessity from the type that Pitt the Younger was talking about, which was aggressive regulation from the Government to restrict freedoms because they said it was necessary to do so, not a situation in which they said, “Because you need something, we, the Government, are able to fund it.” I am grateful for that intellectually stimulating intervention, which has allowed the general attitude of the Committee to be raised even higher than it was before. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.121
I am not convinced by that. I like a bit of sugar and have a sweet tooth; I particularly like Cadbury’s creme eggs, even with the change in the chocolate—the change is broadly disagreeable but they are still not at all bad. I am not in favour of the anti-sugar brigade. We should allow people to enjoy a bit of sugar—it sweetens them up and makes them better tempered and more good-natured. Sweetness and light spreads across the nation when people have a bit of sugar. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.123
I was saying that I like sugar. I am not going to force-feed it to people—it would be against what I am proposing in amendment 37. I am not going to go round nursing homes and say to people, “Do have  a bit of sugar.” That would be the last thing I would want to do. Their medical needs are being taken care of and they are getting medical advice to deal with the disease that they have. Of course I am not going to interfere with what their doctors say to them.Doctors need to have the right to give advice to their patients, but the patients do not have to follow what their doctor says, and that also applies to the Secretary of State. He is a wise and good man, and I have the highest admiration for him, but I do not want him to be leading my life for me. I quite like sugar, and I do not want to be terrified of having a little bit of sugar in a fruit juice—although I am going to pish the fruit juice, because it is far too healthy for me. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.125
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his always interesting interventions. I disagree with that one but look forward with eager anticipation to the gift that he has promised me. It will encourage me to come, eventually, to an end in our deliberations, simply so that I get a creme egg. However, I was intending to be both prescriptive and proscriptive; I wish to proscribe extra regulatory burdens and I wish the Bill to prescribe that they should be proscribed. As for the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, it is one of the most important reforms that this Government have carried through, with enormous burdens removed to allow the health of the nation to flourish.I wish to come on to the second part of the amendment, which includes the phrase,“without any additional regulatory burden”,to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish rightly referred in his intervention. It is in the nature of Governments to regulate. Why? Because they can. They have a majority and the ability to do so. There are many pressure groups that bang the drum, make a lot of noise and say that it is important that a regulation should be introduced and that a little bit of freedom should be taken away. The pressure is always for increased regulation to be imposed on the British people.I am calling for Her Majesty’s Government to lead by example and show what shining lights they are in the firmament of politicians who say that health may be improved by doing X or Y. I want the nation at large to believe them because they are such trustworthy and upstanding figures, and because they do it in a way that is embraced by a willing, joyful public who think, “How lucky we are to get such sensible advice”, rather than a downtrodden public who are ordered to do it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.127
I am very much in accordance with my hon. Friend’s views. The design to secure improvement seems to be giving too much power that is not just about information; it could be sheer bossiness, sending nurse around to confiscate the third bottle of port so that Pitt the Younger could not drink it. What fine speeches he made, inspired by drink.I must recall F. E. Smith, the late Lord Birkenhead in this context, who was a prodigious drinker. He would be practically slumped at dinner, unable to communicate with the people sitting next to him, but he would get up to speak and make the finest speeches anyone of his era made—almost certainly finer speeches, from all that one reads, than those of Winston Churchill. [Interruption.] I do not know whether Hansard picked up that helpful intervention: that was probably according to people who were pretty inebriated themselves.However, I am sure that there were some old sobersides there, some puritanical types and teetotallers, because there are such people. Was it not Nancy Astor who held up a glass of whisky, put worms in it and said, “What do you get if you put worms in whisky?” and someone called out, “Dead worms”? I believe that she was an ardent teetotaller, but she did not have the law behind her. She was doing that by example, persuasion and oratory, but not by edict.Here we open the way to edict. Those fine speeches of F. E. Smith and the fine leadership of Pitt the Younger and Churchill would have been lost. I cannot recall this perfectly, but Pitt the Younger said something about necessity being the plea of tyrants and the creed of slaves. That is what one gets: the feeling that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should have that power. Once he has that power, we become a downtrodden nation of serfs and slaves. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.111
It depends on what my right hon. Friend means by edicts. I have no objection to taxation on spirits, wine and cigarettes because the Government have to raise their money somehow or another and it is perfectly reasonable to get it in those areas. I am in favour of licensing laws, because there are other factors to consider: one needs to think about the neighbourhood and whether people who wish to enjoy their slumbers will be disturbed as others go around, inward and outward of their public houses, drunkenly causing a disturbance.There are places within the whole of society where some regulation and control may be necessary, but it is about that being the job of the Secretary of State for Health that perturbs me. The Secretary of State will be focused on what is good for people, and that is where I become very suspicious that the Secretary of State ought not to be giving such orders. In the other parts of regulation, the licensing laws will be dealt with by local authorities and the taxation laws by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is all fair and reasonable, but it is this level of edict that I dislike—hence“the liberties of the people of England”—and it may be worth adding at this point that the amendment would prevent, as is currently topical, the idiotic proposal to insist that cigarettes are sold in plain packaging. Several hon . Members rose— Jacob Rees-Mogg I am spoilt for choice. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.113
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Also, it is a question of authority. One should not encourage the Government too much to issue orders and instructions and to place adverts, because an awful lot of people instinctively disbelieve them, whereas they might believe their own physician. I think it is a bad idea for the Department of Health to issue edicts saying, “You will live a healthier life; you will live longer if you do this, that and the next thing,” because a lot of people are immediately suspicious of such advice. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.115
My right hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. There are cases where there is an urgent need for the Government to bring things to people’s attention, and that would not be precluded by my amendment. It is hard to see that an advert warning people not to die of ignorance could in any way be incompatible with our ancient liberties. I do not maintain that a part of our ancient liberties is the ancient liberty to die. I am not suggesting that that is a reasonable or rational position to take. The Government having responsibility when they know things that other people do not, and warning them of what may happen, is one thing. It would have been another thing had they decided to legislate about people’s private behaviour that might have put them at risk of getting AIDS. That would be an entirely separate matter, so it is about getting the balance right, which I do not think the clause as currently written does. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.117
It would be a privilege for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to answer—he is very knowledgeable in such matters—but as far as those boards identify the needs of communities and promote solutions to health needs, that is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. If they exceed their brief and tell people how to live their lives, that is not a reasonable thing to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.119
That is an exceptionally good point. Medical necessity is not a case of the Government insisting that something is necessary and therefore has to be done to someone; it is the Government saying that if someone has that necessity and asks for it, it will be funded for them. It is a different type of necessity from the type that Pitt the Younger was talking about, which was aggressive regulation from the Government to restrict freedoms because they said it was necessary to do so, not a situation in which they said, “Because you need something, we, the Government, are able to fund it.” I am grateful for that intellectually stimulating intervention, which has allowed the general attitude of the Committee to be raised even higher than it was before. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.121
I am not convinced by that. I like a bit of sugar and have a sweet tooth; I particularly like Cadbury’s creme eggs, even with the change in the chocolate—the change is broadly disagreeable but they are still not at all bad. I am not in favour of the anti-sugar brigade. We should allow people to enjoy a bit of sugar—it sweetens them up and makes them better tempered and more good-natured. Sweetness and light spreads across the nation when people have a bit of sugar. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.123
I was saying that I like sugar. I am not going to force-feed it to people—it would be against what I am proposing in amendment 37. I am not going to go round nursing homes and say to people, “Do have  a bit of sugar.” That would be the last thing I would want to do. Their medical needs are being taken care of and they are getting medical advice to deal with the disease that they have. Of course I am not going to interfere with what their doctors say to them.Doctors need to have the right to give advice to their patients, but the patients do not have to follow what their doctor says, and that also applies to the Secretary of State. He is a wise and good man, and I have the highest admiration for him, but I do not want him to be leading my life for me. I quite like sugar, and I do not want to be terrified of having a little bit of sugar in a fruit juice—although I am going to pish the fruit juice, because it is far too healthy for me. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.125
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his always interesting interventions. I disagree with that one but look forward with eager anticipation to the gift that he has promised me. It will encourage me to come, eventually, to an end in our deliberations, simply so that I get a creme egg. However, I was intending to be both prescriptive and proscriptive; I wish to proscribe extra regulatory burdens and I wish the Bill to prescribe that they should be proscribed. As for the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, it is one of the most important reforms that this Government have carried through, with enormous burdens removed to allow the health of the nation to flourish.I wish to come on to the second part of the amendment, which includes the phrase,“without any additional regulatory burden”,to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish rightly referred in his intervention. It is in the nature of Governments to regulate. Why? Because they can. They have a majority and the ability to do so. There are many pressure groups that bang the drum, make a lot of noise and say that it is important that a regulation should be introduced and that a little bit of freedom should be taken away. The pressure is always for increased regulation to be imposed on the British people.I am calling for Her Majesty’s Government to lead by example and show what shining lights they are in the firmament of politicians who say that health may be improved by doing X or Y. I want the nation at large to believe them because they are such trustworthy and upstanding figures, and because they do it in a way that is embraced by a willing, joyful public who think, “How lucky we are to get such sensible advice”, rather than a downtrodden public who are ordered to do it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.127
I am grateful for that point, but the bulk of the Bill is England-only, and clause 14 is quite a jump from the rest of the Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.91
That is a very good point, and it is a benefit of that Act that it protects the health service in England. The failures elsewhere are quite well known. We will come on to consider clause 15 in due course— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.93
I will read out the sentence in the Bill again, for the benefit of those who were not listening the last time:“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement”;it would continue, if my amendment was accepted, “as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England”. At that point, it would have been eccentric to add “and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and perhaps the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well—why not?” I think that I am following on from the wording of the hon. Member for Eltham with considerable clarity, and am underwriting absolutely what we are trying to do. That is because of the phrase, “secure improvement”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.96
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. However, under the Sewel convention, the Government would have needed to seek the permission of the devolved authorities on my behalf, had I wished to table an amendment that covered areas devolved to them. Health is a devolved area. I am therefore working with the tools at hand. If I had other tools, I would possibly be able to work more effectively to protect the general liberties of the United Kingdom. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.98
Mr Bone, you now see the difference between a proceduralist and a scholar. I am a proceduralist and I dealt with the Sewel convention because I know from my reading and study of “Erskine May” and other relevant documents that that is an important convention. My right hon. Friend is a scholar, and he goes to the heart of why it is not possible for the amendment to be tabled in a different form. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
I apologise that my enunciation is so lacking in clarity that there could have been such confusion. I had better not make an aside on the subtitles that occasionally appear on the electronic television, and which confuse phrases. They can be somewhat amusing, and people may be allowed to laugh.I come back to the term “secure improvement”. Why do I want to limit that? Of course, we all want good health, and we want our fellow subjects to enjoy good health. We want the Secretary of State to encourage good health. Governments of old took great strides to improve public health, but they aimed to improve public health by the provision of sewers and clean water and by the removal of slums. I think of Disraeli’s Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act 1875, which was very successful at clearing slums and increasing the health of the British people.That is all good, noble work. However, there has to be some limitation to what we mean by “improvement”. Studies have been done, and learned people go on the wireless to say how healthy this nation was during the second world war, in a period of rationing when the Government set out the maximum amount of butter that someone could have in a week. I believe it was a mere 4 oz of butter, which is hardly enough to give a generous covering to a slice of toast. There were limits on butter, eggs, bacon and other forms of meat. Only foods such as potatoes were not limited.That apparently led to an enormously healthy nation, but it was a nation at a time of war under controls that they were willing to accept in wartime conditions. It seems to me that in peacetime, it would be wrong to allow that power to exist, or to give the Secretary of State the authority to secure improvement without clearly limiting the areas in which he can involve himself.We know only too well that politicians, once in office, are very keen to tell other people what to do. We get very good at it. It is an unfortunate habit of public life that a trend of bossiness comes in. The last Labour Government were absolutely appalling at telling people how to lead their lives. We have been all right so far, but it would not surprise me if even a Conservative Government headed in that direction. It has to be said that the great lady, the late Baroness Thatcher, to whom almost nothing other than perfection can be imputed, occasionally had it within her to become a little bit bossy in the approach she took. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.102
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not willing to do that. De mortuis nil nisi bonum is my approach. I will not say rude things about deceased socialists, and it is a pity that that is not a cross-party attitude, but there we go. You would not like me to be distracted from the main thrust of what I was saying, Mr Bone, but I certainly talk of the late Baroness Thatcher with great affection for all that she did for the nation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
May I say yes simultaneously to you, Mr Bone, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, so as to remain in your good books and in order, and yet to answer my hon. Friend’s question? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.107
I am very sympathetic, but there is a dividing line. It is quite right that Governments should seek improvements in the health of the nation by giving us information, and by telling us well known and clearly established facts so that we are well advised and able to calculate what our response should be. That helpfully leads me on to my amendment, which states that that should be done“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England”.The Government would have to consider the balance, whereas the Bill as it is currently phrased has no balance at all. It does not begin to talk about there being any objective other than the improvement of health, but that, as I have mentioned, gets us back to rationing. If we had rationing, we would all be frightfully healthy, fit, thin and so on, but the Government would have taken absolute control of our lives. It seems to me that that cannot be the right way to proceed.We must remember that there are other underlying principles, which is why I have tabled my twofold amendment. The liberties of the people of England—what are those? There was a 19th-century bishop who said:“Better England free than England sober.”I am afraid to say that that has generally been my view. I am all in favour of sobriety; the only inebriation should be that of sophistical rhetoricians inebriated by the  exuberance of their own verbosity, as Disraeli said of Gladstone. Inebriation of other kinds, at other times and in other places, is surely something that one disparages, disapproves of and dislikes. However, surely it is a freedom of a subject of Her Majesty, if he or she so wishes, to go out on a Saturday or a Friday evening and drink more than is good for them, without my hon. Friend the Minister or the Secretary of State telling them that they must not and wagging a governmental finger at them.The English have been known for getting drunk since before they were English. If one believes Asterix the Gaul, they were getting drunk in Roman times. The Anglo-Saxons certainly had a fine capacity for indulgence, and we have carried that on. It was commented on a considerable amount during the 18th century and at other times. I have a feeling that Erasmus may have mentioned it, although I may be wrong; I may stand correction on the capacity the English had for drinking when he visited. However, that is a wonderful freedom, is it not? It might be that a po-faced health official disapproves and thinks that it really will not do at all, but are we to exclude it from our national life?Think of the great Prime Ministers who drank prodigious quantities. Two of our finest Prime Ministers drank huge amounts. I think of Pitt the Younger and Winston Churchill, who consumed quantities that would have me under the table within about half a day. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Eltham want me to give way? I thought that he wanted to intervene. I am a lightweight compared with those two great figures, but a journalist from The Daily Telegraph tried copying the consumption of Winston Churchill. We know what journalists are like—I do, because I am related to one or two of them, one deceased—they have a good capacity for drinking, but by teatime this poor journalist was finished; he had had so much Pol Roger and so on that he could not even manage his cucumber sandwiches. Do we really want the Secretary of State for Health saying to our great figures—people like Winston Churchill—“Cut it out. No more of that. The Secretary of State doesn’t approve. It’ll improve your health. You’ll live to 90 anyway, but you’d better stop drinking”?Pitt the Younger is an easier case because he lived only to his early 40s, but none the less he was supposed to drink three bottles of port a day. Port is a fine drink, which is strongly to be recommended. It was popular in that period because we were at war with the French, so the more traditional English drink of claret was being avoided, partly because it was difficult to get and partly because we did not wish to support the enemy economically. Would we want, for the sake of the improvement of his health, someone going to Pitt the Younger and saying, “We really don’t think you should have that third bottle of port. Two is quite enough; a third looks like greed”? That would be a highly unsatisfactory state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.109
I am grateful for that point, but the bulk of the Bill is England-only, and clause 14 is quite a jump from the rest of the Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.91
That is a very good point, and it is a benefit of that Act that it protects the health service in England. The failures elsewhere are quite well known. We will come on to consider clause 15 in due course— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.93
I will read out the sentence in the Bill again, for the benefit of those who were not listening the last time:“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement”;it would continue, if my amendment was accepted, “as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England”. At that point, it would have been eccentric to add “and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and perhaps the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well—why not?” I think that I am following on from the wording of the hon. Member for Eltham with considerable clarity, and am underwriting absolutely what we are trying to do. That is because of the phrase, “secure improvement”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.96
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. However, under the Sewel convention, the Government would have needed to seek the permission of the devolved authorities on my behalf, had I wished to table an amendment that covered areas devolved to them. Health is a devolved area. I am therefore working with the tools at hand. If I had other tools, I would possibly be able to work more effectively to protect the general liberties of the United Kingdom. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.98
Mr Bone, you now see the difference between a proceduralist and a scholar. I am a proceduralist and I dealt with the Sewel convention because I know from my reading and study of “Erskine May” and other relevant documents that that is an important convention. My right hon. Friend is a scholar, and he goes to the heart of why it is not possible for the amendment to be tabled in a different form. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.100
I apologise that my enunciation is so lacking in clarity that there could have been such confusion. I had better not make an aside on the subtitles that occasionally appear on the electronic television, and which confuse phrases. They can be somewhat amusing, and people may be allowed to laugh.I come back to the term “secure improvement”. Why do I want to limit that? Of course, we all want good health, and we want our fellow subjects to enjoy good health. We want the Secretary of State to encourage good health. Governments of old took great strides to improve public health, but they aimed to improve public health by the provision of sewers and clean water and by the removal of slums. I think of Disraeli’s Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act 1875, which was very successful at clearing slums and increasing the health of the British people.That is all good, noble work. However, there has to be some limitation to what we mean by “improvement”. Studies have been done, and learned people go on the wireless to say how healthy this nation was during the second world war, in a period of rationing when the Government set out the maximum amount of butter that someone could have in a week. I believe it was a mere 4 oz of butter, which is hardly enough to give a generous covering to a slice of toast. There were limits on butter, eggs, bacon and other forms of meat. Only foods such as potatoes were not limited.That apparently led to an enormously healthy nation, but it was a nation at a time of war under controls that they were willing to accept in wartime conditions. It seems to me that in peacetime, it would be wrong to allow that power to exist, or to give the Secretary of State the authority to secure improvement without clearly limiting the areas in which he can involve himself.We know only too well that politicians, once in office, are very keen to tell other people what to do. We get very good at it. It is an unfortunate habit of public life that a trend of bossiness comes in. The last Labour Government were absolutely appalling at telling people how to lead their lives. We have been all right so far, but it would not surprise me if even a Conservative Government headed in that direction. It has to be said that the great lady, the late Baroness Thatcher, to whom almost nothing other than perfection can be imputed, occasionally had it within her to become a little bit bossy in the approach she took. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.102
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not willing to do that. De mortuis nil nisi bonum is my approach. I will not say rude things about deceased socialists, and it is a pity that that is not a cross-party attitude, but there we go. You would not like me to be distracted from the main thrust of what I was saying, Mr Bone, but I certainly talk of the late Baroness Thatcher with great affection for all that she did for the nation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.104
May I say yes simultaneously to you, Mr Bone, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, so as to remain in your good books and in order, and yet to answer my hon. Friend’s question? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.107
I am very sympathetic, but there is a dividing line. It is quite right that Governments should seek improvements in the health of the nation by giving us information, and by telling us well known and clearly established facts so that we are well advised and able to calculate what our response should be. That helpfully leads me on to my amendment, which states that that should be done“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England”.The Government would have to consider the balance, whereas the Bill as it is currently phrased has no balance at all. It does not begin to talk about there being any objective other than the improvement of health, but that, as I have mentioned, gets us back to rationing. If we had rationing, we would all be frightfully healthy, fit, thin and so on, but the Government would have taken absolute control of our lives. It seems to me that that cannot be the right way to proceed.We must remember that there are other underlying principles, which is why I have tabled my twofold amendment. The liberties of the people of England—what are those? There was a 19th-century bishop who said:“Better England free than England sober.”I am afraid to say that that has generally been my view. I am all in favour of sobriety; the only inebriation should be that of sophistical rhetoricians inebriated by the  exuberance of their own verbosity, as Disraeli said of Gladstone. Inebriation of other kinds, at other times and in other places, is surely something that one disparages, disapproves of and dislikes. However, surely it is a freedom of a subject of Her Majesty, if he or she so wishes, to go out on a Saturday or a Friday evening and drink more than is good for them, without my hon. Friend the Minister or the Secretary of State telling them that they must not and wagging a governmental finger at them.The English have been known for getting drunk since before they were English. If one believes Asterix the Gaul, they were getting drunk in Roman times. The Anglo-Saxons certainly had a fine capacity for indulgence, and we have carried that on. It was commented on a considerable amount during the 18th century and at other times. I have a feeling that Erasmus may have mentioned it, although I may be wrong; I may stand correction on the capacity the English had for drinking when he visited. However, that is a wonderful freedom, is it not? It might be that a po-faced health official disapproves and thinks that it really will not do at all, but are we to exclude it from our national life?Think of the great Prime Ministers who drank prodigious quantities. Two of our finest Prime Ministers drank huge amounts. I think of Pitt the Younger and Winston Churchill, who consumed quantities that would have me under the table within about half a day. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Eltham want me to give way? I thought that he wanted to intervene. I am a lightweight compared with those two great figures, but a journalist from The Daily Telegraph tried copying the consumption of Winston Churchill. We know what journalists are like—I do, because I am related to one or two of them, one deceased—they have a good capacity for drinking, but by teatime this poor journalist was finished; he had had so much Pol Roger and so on that he could not even manage his cucumber sandwiches. Do we really want the Secretary of State for Health saying to our great figures—people like Winston Churchill—“Cut it out. No more of that. The Secretary of State doesn’t approve. It’ll improve your health. You’ll live to 90 anyway, but you’d better stop drinking”?Pitt the Younger is an easier case because he lived only to his early 40s, but none the less he was supposed to drink three bottles of port a day. Port is a fine drink, which is strongly to be recommended. It was popular in that period because we were at war with the French, so the more traditional English drink of claret was being avoided, partly because it was difficult to get and partly because we did not wish to support the enemy economically. Would we want, for the sake of the improvement of his health, someone going to Pitt the Younger and saying, “We really don’t think you should have that third bottle of port. Two is quite enough; a third looks like greed”? That would be a highly unsatisfactory state. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.109
I am sorry, Mr Bone. I thought it was important to consider some of the aspects to which the measure could apply. I accept that we have covered the professions, but difference in age is also important to the issue of what determines necessity. The term “medical necessity” has a glorious sense of flexibility as well as being precise.To return to our learned friends—to the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, who may consider such matters in her court at some stage—if the clause said “medical necessity”, our learned friends would be able to rule on it in accordance with what Parliament had said, rather than guessing what we might have meant or looking at our proceedings, which has recently been allowed, unfortunately. I think that the more robust approach taken historically—that no proceeding in Parliament could ever be considered in a court—was preferable and put a stronger onus on us to pass robust and intelligible legislation. That has been eroded by allowing judges to look more into what we, particularly Ministers, actually say in Committee, rather than at the precise wording of Bills. Although the House can be enormously proud of its parliamentary draftsmanship—a fabulous service is provided—right hon. and hon. Members sometimes do not take the advice of our fine parliamentary draftsmen and end up with language that is imprecise and difficult to judge.My proposal to replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity” arises in a number of amendments that I have tabled—I draw Members’ attention to amendments 38, 39, 50 and 52. Basically, wherever “social solidarity” appears, I propose to delete it, in clauses 1 and 2. I look forward to turning to the matter more specifically in relation to the next clause. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.69
I had not realised that we were going to be debating gentlemen’s hosiery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.71
That is of great reassurance. As you stood up, Mr Bone, I noticed the vivid colour of your own hosiery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.73
I am grateful for both of those interventions; they are helpful in clarifying the situation. I am proposing to use the phrase “medical necessity”, not “medically essential”—there is a difference. Something can be necessary, but not of fundamental essentialness—that is, something can be a good thing to do and therefore necessary, but it would be a step further to say that it is essential. I would not propose the phrase “medically essential”, because that would be too high a hurdle for a clinician to overcome, or, indeed, for the Secretary of State to overcome in his responsibilities. The phase “medically necessary” puts it down a layer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford intervened to say. It would be a case of looking at whether the procedure was required for the health of the patient or was purely a cosmetic operation and not really required. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.75
I am grateful for that ingenious intervention, but I think that circumstance would be covered by the Equality Act 2010, which requires equal treatment for the gentleman and the lady. There are some gentlemen who, even though they are adults, still wear short trousers—[ Interruption. ] I had forgotten about our friends in Scotland, who obviously wear kilts. For the same cosmetic reasons, their care would have the same urgency as a lady’s care. That answers that broad, albeit valid and interesting, point. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.77
That is a very interesting question. I read an interesting piece in a newspaper recently about children from the German extermination camps who came to the United Kingdom after the war. They went to the lake district, and some of them had their tattoos, which numbered them, removed. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the national health service to do, and it would be described not as merely cosmetic but as a way of restoring a right that was unjustly taken away. As it happens, some of them did not want the tattoos removed. One man was quoted as saying that he did not want his tattoo removed because he felt that he had nothing to be ashamed of—it was his captors who had something to be ashamed of.There are circumstances where it is right that tattoos should be removed by the NHS, and there are other situations where it is not, such as when an adult, in full knowledge of what they are doing, decides to have a tattoo that they later regret. As so often, there is good advice on the matter in P.G. Wodehouse, who says that  a young, unmarried gentleman should never have a girl’s name tattooed on any part of him because he might change the girl before he gets married, and then the tattoo would be awkward. If somebody had the name “Sue” tattooed on their heart, I am not sure it would be wise for the health service to remove it because the decision to have that tattoo was made with full knowledge. If there is any expense attached to that decision, perhaps the individual could pay for it themselves. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.79
That is a brilliant and most wonderful point, because I can see that, if the gentleman then married a lady called Felicity, having “Sue” tattooed on him might cause him a good deal of mental anguish. One hates to think of the daily mental anguish that might be inflicted, and my hon. Friend is therefore right. I see that the removal of such a tattoo may be a medical necessity.What I like about the way this debate is going, and about the helpfulness of the interventions, is that it clarifies my view that “medical necessity” is the right terminology to use. We have discussed, debated and considered the cases that have come up and, as we have done so, we have discovered that the cases that arise could be resolved with fairness to all parties. The cases could be treated on the national health service, free at the point of use, without any great difficulty. That is not a very high test; it is a reasonable test. It is a test that will be allowed to evolve as medical science evolves, and as needs and expectations change. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.81
I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend. It is important that “medical necessity” encompasses the Health Secretary’s co-operation with other relevant bodies. Indeed, I have tabled a separate amendment to ensure that social care can collaborate with the health service. Bath and North East Somerset council covers the area I represent, and it has been exceptionally good at trying to work with local hospitals to ensure that the combination of considerations of medical necessity and social care keeps people in their own home and out of hospital, gives them a better quality of life, and ensures that their underlying conditions are treated. His point is valid, and it goes back to the point that “medical necessity” is the term that we want to use. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.83
That is a very good point. My right hon. Friend will know this, so to the extent that I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, I apologise, but it may none the less be sensible to set this out. The Bill places duties on the Secretary of State. He will therefore determine what a medical necessity is under the Bill, but his judgment could be subject to a judicial review if his judgment were thought to be faulty. In the first instance, the decision would be made by the Secretary of State, but if it were thought that it was a wrong decision, it would be passed along the line to a judicial review and, ultimately, it would work its way through the courts to the Supreme Court.I see my right hon. Friend’s point: any terminology we use is obviously open to interpretation, and the courts have to work out the boundaries between political interpretation and that which is not within the law. This is sometimes a very blurred boundary. Some things appear, on the face of it, to be within the language used in the Bill but, partly because times have changed and partly because of fundamental rights and so on, it is thought that a decision made on that basis is not a rational decision, and can be challenged through and by the courts and overturned. However, that must apply to any language used in a Bill. It must always be the case, as soon as a duty is placed on not only a Secretary of State, but the Lord President of the Council, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Treasury, or the holder of any other specific, named post within our constitution, such as the Lord Great Chamberlain. Any post whose holder is given the legislative authority to make decisions may find that that decision can be challenged in the courts, and the understanding of the language used will become justiciable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.85
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his supportive and helpful comment. It is surprising that so important a part of the Bill was not referred to on Second Reading, though I was absent from Second Reading. It would have been possible to have explained the term then, and that might have superseded my amendment. I think that the courts would find it much easier to deal with the term, “medical necessity”, which, as I was saying, is a relatively definable activity for the courts and for the Secretary of State.I should have added, as I went through the list of people whose decisions can be challenged, that, of course, if the Crown itself were to make a decision, that  cannot be challenged in the courts. A decision by our sovereign lady is above any consideration by a court. That is the highest form of authority, but it would be unusual for Her Majesty to make a personal decision relating to a matter delegated to one of her Secretaries of State acting as the Secretary of State. That comes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about the use of language in Bills. I have been trying to get across that all language is interpretable. Indeed, one of the joys of language is to try to work out what it means, how it has developed and what it might have meant in a different context, in a different era. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.87
I am so sorry, Mr Bone; I was just responding to an intervention about it. Suffice it to say that clarity is the essence of good legislation.I had intended to come on to some of my other amendments, because amendment 38 was just the opening one of the amendments listed for consideration in this group. Amendment 37 would add at the end of clause 1(1):“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England and without any additional regulatory burden.”So, if the amendment was accepted, clause 1(1) would read: “The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement as far as is compatible”, and so on.Why did I table this amendment? First, I apologise to my friends in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland for the fact that they are excluded from my amendment. That is not because I do not hold their liberties dear; I would not like anyone to think that. The liberties of other people in the United Kingdom—people in the other countries that make up our blessed Union—are just as valid and valuable as those of the English. However, this Bill is an England-only Bill, so I had to follow the terminology used in the Bill. What am I trying to get at? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.89
I am sorry, Mr Bone. I thought it was important to consider some of the aspects to which the measure could apply. I accept that we have covered the professions, but difference in age is also important to the issue of what determines necessity. The term “medical necessity” has a glorious sense of flexibility as well as being precise.To return to our learned friends—to the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, who may consider such matters in her court at some stage—if the clause said “medical necessity”, our learned friends would be able to rule on it in accordance with what Parliament had said, rather than guessing what we might have meant or looking at our proceedings, which has recently been allowed, unfortunately. I think that the more robust approach taken historically—that no proceeding in Parliament could ever be considered in a court—was preferable and put a stronger onus on us to pass robust and intelligible legislation. That has been eroded by allowing judges to look more into what we, particularly Ministers, actually say in Committee, rather than at the precise wording of Bills. Although the House can be enormously proud of its parliamentary draftsmanship—a fabulous service is provided—right hon. and hon. Members sometimes do not take the advice of our fine parliamentary draftsmen and end up with language that is imprecise and difficult to judge.My proposal to replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity” arises in a number of amendments that I have tabled—I draw Members’ attention to amendments 38, 39, 50 and 52. Basically, wherever “social solidarity” appears, I propose to delete it, in clauses 1 and 2. I look forward to turning to the matter more specifically in relation to the next clause. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.69
I had not realised that we were going to be debating gentlemen’s hosiery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.71
That is of great reassurance. As you stood up, Mr Bone, I noticed the vivid colour of your own hosiery. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.73
I am grateful for both of those interventions; they are helpful in clarifying the situation. I am proposing to use the phrase “medical necessity”, not “medically essential”—there is a difference. Something can be necessary, but not of fundamental essentialness—that is, something can be a good thing to do and therefore necessary, but it would be a step further to say that it is essential. I would not propose the phrase “medically essential”, because that would be too high a hurdle for a clinician to overcome, or, indeed, for the Secretary of State to overcome in his responsibilities. The phase “medically necessary” puts it down a layer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford intervened to say. It would be a case of looking at whether the procedure was required for the health of the patient or was purely a cosmetic operation and not really required. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.75
I am grateful for that ingenious intervention, but I think that circumstance would be covered by the Equality Act 2010, which requires equal treatment for the gentleman and the lady. There are some gentlemen who, even though they are adults, still wear short trousers—[ Interruption. ] I had forgotten about our friends in Scotland, who obviously wear kilts. For the same cosmetic reasons, their care would have the same urgency as a lady’s care. That answers that broad, albeit valid and interesting, point. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.77
That is a very interesting question. I read an interesting piece in a newspaper recently about children from the German extermination camps who came to the United Kingdom after the war. They went to the lake district, and some of them had their tattoos, which numbered them, removed. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the national health service to do, and it would be described not as merely cosmetic but as a way of restoring a right that was unjustly taken away. As it happens, some of them did not want the tattoos removed. One man was quoted as saying that he did not want his tattoo removed because he felt that he had nothing to be ashamed of—it was his captors who had something to be ashamed of.There are circumstances where it is right that tattoos should be removed by the NHS, and there are other situations where it is not, such as when an adult, in full knowledge of what they are doing, decides to have a tattoo that they later regret. As so often, there is good advice on the matter in P.G. Wodehouse, who says that  a young, unmarried gentleman should never have a girl’s name tattooed on any part of him because he might change the girl before he gets married, and then the tattoo would be awkward. If somebody had the name “Sue” tattooed on their heart, I am not sure it would be wise for the health service to remove it because the decision to have that tattoo was made with full knowledge. If there is any expense attached to that decision, perhaps the individual could pay for it themselves. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.79
That is a brilliant and most wonderful point, because I can see that, if the gentleman then married a lady called Felicity, having “Sue” tattooed on him might cause him a good deal of mental anguish. One hates to think of the daily mental anguish that might be inflicted, and my hon. Friend is therefore right. I see that the removal of such a tattoo may be a medical necessity.What I like about the way this debate is going, and about the helpfulness of the interventions, is that it clarifies my view that “medical necessity” is the right terminology to use. We have discussed, debated and considered the cases that have come up and, as we have done so, we have discovered that the cases that arise could be resolved with fairness to all parties. The cases could be treated on the national health service, free at the point of use, without any great difficulty. That is not a very high test; it is a reasonable test. It is a test that will be allowed to evolve as medical science evolves, and as needs and expectations change. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.81
I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend. It is important that “medical necessity” encompasses the Health Secretary’s co-operation with other relevant bodies. Indeed, I have tabled a separate amendment to ensure that social care can collaborate with the health service. Bath and North East Somerset council covers the area I represent, and it has been exceptionally good at trying to work with local hospitals to ensure that the combination of considerations of medical necessity and social care keeps people in their own home and out of hospital, gives them a better quality of life, and ensures that their underlying conditions are treated. His point is valid, and it goes back to the point that “medical necessity” is the term that we want to use. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.83
That is a very good point. My right hon. Friend will know this, so to the extent that I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, I apologise, but it may none the less be sensible to set this out. The Bill places duties on the Secretary of State. He will therefore determine what a medical necessity is under the Bill, but his judgment could be subject to a judicial review if his judgment were thought to be faulty. In the first instance, the decision would be made by the Secretary of State, but if it were thought that it was a wrong decision, it would be passed along the line to a judicial review and, ultimately, it would work its way through the courts to the Supreme Court.I see my right hon. Friend’s point: any terminology we use is obviously open to interpretation, and the courts have to work out the boundaries between political interpretation and that which is not within the law. This is sometimes a very blurred boundary. Some things appear, on the face of it, to be within the language used in the Bill but, partly because times have changed and partly because of fundamental rights and so on, it is thought that a decision made on that basis is not a rational decision, and can be challenged through and by the courts and overturned. However, that must apply to any language used in a Bill. It must always be the case, as soon as a duty is placed on not only a Secretary of State, but the Lord President of the Council, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Treasury, or the holder of any other specific, named post within our constitution, such as the Lord Great Chamberlain. Any post whose holder is given the legislative authority to make decisions may find that that decision can be challenged in the courts, and the understanding of the language used will become justiciable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.85
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his supportive and helpful comment. It is surprising that so important a part of the Bill was not referred to on Second Reading, though I was absent from Second Reading. It would have been possible to have explained the term then, and that might have superseded my amendment. I think that the courts would find it much easier to deal with the term, “medical necessity”, which, as I was saying, is a relatively definable activity for the courts and for the Secretary of State.I should have added, as I went through the list of people whose decisions can be challenged, that, of course, if the Crown itself were to make a decision, that  cannot be challenged in the courts. A decision by our sovereign lady is above any consideration by a court. That is the highest form of authority, but it would be unusual for Her Majesty to make a personal decision relating to a matter delegated to one of her Secretaries of State acting as the Secretary of State. That comes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about the use of language in Bills. I have been trying to get across that all language is interpretable. Indeed, one of the joys of language is to try to work out what it means, how it has developed and what it might have meant in a different context, in a different era. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.87
I am so sorry, Mr Bone; I was just responding to an intervention about it. Suffice it to say that clarity is the essence of good legislation.I had intended to come on to some of my other amendments, because amendment 38 was just the opening one of the amendments listed for consideration in this group. Amendment 37 would add at the end of clause 1(1):“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England and without any additional regulatory burden.”So, if the amendment was accepted, clause 1(1) would read: “The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement as far as is compatible”, and so on.Why did I table this amendment? First, I apologise to my friends in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland for the fact that they are excluded from my amendment. That is not because I do not hold their liberties dear; I would not like anyone to think that. The liberties of other people in the United Kingdom—people in the other countries that make up our blessed Union—are just as valid and valuable as those of the English. However, this Bill is an England-only Bill, so I had to follow the terminology used in the Bill. What am I trying to get at? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.89
I was talking about the issue of the medical necessity of the NHS, so that people will respect it, feel that they have commonality with it and have confidence that it is spending its money as wisely as possible. This is an important point about why we need to insert the term “medical necessity”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily interesting and perceptive intervention, because “medical necessity” has great virtue as a term, in that it is precise on the one hand but flexible on the other. Precise flexibility is a good place to be in terms of this legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
It is the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and he put in the term “social solidarity”. Perhaps he did not take in all that I said about social solidarity. I will therefore add a wonderful point from “Mater et Magistra” on the issue of social solidarity, to remind the hon.  Gentleman of its importance. The Pope writes of the dignity of agricultural work, with the family farm held up as an ideal, and notes that a trend of people moving away from farms toward cities was partly due to economic growth but also reflected depression in the occupation of farming and inadequate standards of living in rural areas. I confess that that is a concern of mine too. I always want to see the highest social solidarity in farming areas. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of points in his intervention. The first is that this social solidarity is the Arthur Scargillisation of legislation. I remember when I was a schoolboy between childhood and adulthood seeing groups shouting, “The miners united will never be defeated”. That is perhaps what they mean by social solidarity—that they want to bring back picket lines and all that went with Mr Arthur Scargill. I see my right hon. Friend’s point.On my right hon. Friend’s point about clinical necessity, why did I not choose the word “clinical”? The reason is partly pedantry. The word “clinical” strictly means “bedside” and, although I know that it has evolved to mean something more encompassing, a clinical manner is strictly a bedside manner rather than what we have come to think of it meaning. I accept the charge of pedantry, and accept that “clinical” has virtue, because it is slightly wider than “medical”. Nonetheless, I think “medical” covers what we are trying to get at, partly because of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who made an inspired point about the concept of flexible certainty. That is to say—to go back to “Mater et Magistra”—that the medical need for the agricultural worker may well be different from the medical need of the office worker. They may have different requirements. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.61
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—grateful but puzzled on this occasion. Surely the object of the health service is in its title: its object is to be a health service. Therefore, when he talks about broader responsibilities to society, there are other institutions that deal with that. There are charitable organisations, individual activities and the women’s institute, but it is not a job for the national health service. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.63
The hon. Gentleman is being unduly narrow. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.65
My right hon. Friend is spot on. It is obscure to say that mental health is not part of health or medical necessity and therefore will not be part of the requirement on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service. The whole point I was trying to make was that this is a health service. If a health service is based on anything other than medical need—I accept that an argument could be made for clinical need, but basically the same terminology applies—then it is not a health service. It may be a general service doing all sorts of nice and good things, but it is not a health service.To go back to the point I was making when we went off to vote in the Chamber, it is important that the health service retains its primary objective so that it maintains the support of the people. If it becomes a vacuous service trying to do a million and one things, but none of them very well, and if it has statutory duties thrown upon it that do not relate to the health of the nation or of the individuals who make up a nation, it cannot be seen to be doing its job. The Secretary of State for Health needs to be focused on the duties given to him that underpin the seals of office that he holds. He holds his seals of office by virtue of health and not by virtue of a broader range of nice-to-do things—of motherhood and apple pie, as I said earlier.I return to an earlier intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—lest you think, Mr Bone, that I had forgotten it or allowed it to slip my mind, because it was an important point on differences in medical necessity. The flexibility within the term is such that while it may be particularly important for a spin bowler to have an operation on his hands, someone who is 90 and is no longer bowling—Dunbowlin being the retirement home for old cricketers—may not need such an operation. I believe Tich Freeman retired to a property called Dunbowlin, and the Chair will remember that he was a first-class bowler at county level. He is the only man ever to take 300 wickets in a season. If he had a problem with his fingers, it would have been a medical necessity for him to have that operation, but if I had such a problem, it would not particularly impede my speaking. I could carry on addressing the House. Although I confess I make the odd hand movement, I would not be in the same position as the famous, now late, Tich Freeman, most remarkable man that he was.The concept applies more broadly. A racing car driver would have different medical needs from someone who did not race motorcycles, but raced horses instead. A jockey would have different concerns, because of the position he adopts, from a racing car driver. If we look at the various types of footballer— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.67
I was talking about the issue of the medical necessity of the NHS, so that people will respect it, feel that they have commonality with it and have confidence that it is spending its money as wisely as possible. This is an important point about why we need to insert the term “medical necessity”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.55
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily interesting and perceptive intervention, because “medical necessity” has great virtue as a term, in that it is precise on the one hand but flexible on the other. Precise flexibility is a good place to be in terms of this legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.57
It is the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and he put in the term “social solidarity”. Perhaps he did not take in all that I said about social solidarity. I will therefore add a wonderful point from “Mater et Magistra” on the issue of social solidarity, to remind the hon.  Gentleman of its importance. The Pope writes of the dignity of agricultural work, with the family farm held up as an ideal, and notes that a trend of people moving away from farms toward cities was partly due to economic growth but also reflected depression in the occupation of farming and inadequate standards of living in rural areas. I confess that that is a concern of mine too. I always want to see the highest social solidarity in farming areas. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.59
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of points in his intervention. The first is that this social solidarity is the Arthur Scargillisation of legislation. I remember when I was a schoolboy between childhood and adulthood seeing groups shouting, “The miners united will never be defeated”. That is perhaps what they mean by social solidarity—that they want to bring back picket lines and all that went with Mr Arthur Scargill. I see my right hon. Friend’s point.On my right hon. Friend’s point about clinical necessity, why did I not choose the word “clinical”? The reason is partly pedantry. The word “clinical” strictly means “bedside” and, although I know that it has evolved to mean something more encompassing, a clinical manner is strictly a bedside manner rather than what we have come to think of it meaning. I accept the charge of pedantry, and accept that “clinical” has virtue, because it is slightly wider than “medical”. Nonetheless, I think “medical” covers what we are trying to get at, partly because of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who made an inspired point about the concept of flexible certainty. That is to say—to go back to “Mater et Magistra”—that the medical need for the agricultural worker may well be different from the medical need of the office worker. They may have different requirements. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.61
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—grateful but puzzled on this occasion. Surely the object of the health service is in its title: its object is to be a health service. Therefore, when he talks about broader responsibilities to society, there are other institutions that deal with that. There are charitable organisations, individual activities and the women’s institute, but it is not a job for the national health service. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.63
The hon. Gentleman is being unduly narrow. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.65
My right hon. Friend is spot on. It is obscure to say that mental health is not part of health or medical necessity and therefore will not be part of the requirement on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service. The whole point I was trying to make was that this is a health service. If a health service is based on anything other than medical need—I accept that an argument could be made for clinical need, but basically the same terminology applies—then it is not a health service. It may be a general service doing all sorts of nice and good things, but it is not a health service.To go back to the point I was making when we went off to vote in the Chamber, it is important that the health service retains its primary objective so that it maintains the support of the people. If it becomes a vacuous service trying to do a million and one things, but none of them very well, and if it has statutory duties thrown upon it that do not relate to the health of the nation or of the individuals who make up a nation, it cannot be seen to be doing its job. The Secretary of State for Health needs to be focused on the duties given to him that underpin the seals of office that he holds. He holds his seals of office by virtue of health and not by virtue of a broader range of nice-to-do things—of motherhood and apple pie, as I said earlier.I return to an earlier intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—lest you think, Mr Bone, that I had forgotten it or allowed it to slip my mind, because it was an important point on differences in medical necessity. The flexibility within the term is such that while it may be particularly important for a spin bowler to have an operation on his hands, someone who is 90 and is no longer bowling—Dunbowlin being the retirement home for old cricketers—may not need such an operation. I believe Tich Freeman retired to a property called Dunbowlin, and the Chair will remember that he was a first-class bowler at county level. He is the only man ever to take 300 wickets in a season. If he had a problem with his fingers, it would have been a medical necessity for him to have that operation, but if I had such a problem, it would not particularly impede my speaking. I could carry on addressing the House. Although I confess I make the odd hand movement, I would not be in the same position as the famous, now late, Tich Freeman, most remarkable man that he was.The concept applies more broadly. A racing car driver would have different medical needs from someone who did not race motorcycles, but raced horses instead. A jockey would have different concerns, because of the position he adopts, from a racing car driver. If we look at the various types of footballer— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.67
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a characteristically helpful intervention, but I think that it helps my point. In the constitution of an organisation it is quite right to use terms that do not have a clear justiciable precision about them, but in legislation it is different. The right place for the terminology of social solidarity is in documents relating to the health service published by the Department of Health. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.41
That is a valuable point, and it is worth reiterating the absolute commitment to the principle of free at the point of use. That is why we need the safeguard of medical necessity. This great service needs to be there for people who are using it for the right purposes, but not for the Christmas puddings and bottles of whisky that were once available. That is why I have proposed that we should replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity”, to ensure that taxpayers get value for money but that patients get exactly the service that  they require. That is of fundamental importance. It underpins everybody’s commitment to the national health service that the whole purpose of it— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.43
I am not convinced about that. We have all had constituency cases in which issues of medical necessity have arisen, where it is possible to help constituents work their way through the national health system if they have a medical necessity to ensure that they get the treatment that they need. I think that that system and the appeals within it mostly work, and they have to be based on medical necessity. The whole point of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is to try to work out whether treatments will work, whether they are necessary and whether they are funded. I believe that that was brought in by the previous Labour Government.For once, let me praise the previous Labour Government —I am glad that you are seated, Mr Bone; otherwise you might fall down in shock—for doing something that was actually pretty sensible. There has to be some independent body that works out whether such matters meet a requirement for medical necessity. If it is left entirely free and open, it is possible that money will be wasted, and that cannot be in the interests of the NHS or of taxpayers. Why do I say that that would not be in the interests of the NHS? It is of great importance that the NHS retains the support of the country at large. To retain that support, which it has overwhelmingly, it needs to be able to show that it is using its funds efficiently. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.45
I obviously do not know the hon. Gentleman’s individual constituency cases, but I have found, mostly with the constituency cases that I have had, that good sense has prevailed and that a reasonable agreement has been reached. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.47
I must confess that I entirely agree with that, because my experience, although limited—I have only been in this House for five years—is that since  the clinical commissioning groups have been in place, I have had fewer of these cases to deal with. The decisions seem to have been got right at an earlier stage. The system has also been easier to collaborate with. It seems to work more efficiently, and I think that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford deserve credit for the work they did on that Bill to make sure that it got through Parliament and allowed that to happen.I think it is a requirement that there is medical necessity. It is hard to get away from that and I do not really understand why, when there is the ability to use precise phraseology—phraseology that can be understood not just by the legal eagles, but by the nation at large—we should want to get away from that. I want to reiterate the theme that I was touching on before the previous intervention. The NHS requires the consent and support of the nation at large. It has that overwhelmingly, but the best way to keep it is if it consistently manages to do its job well. If it does its job well by medical necessity, by treating people who are ill, by the fantastic success record it has got in treating so many illnesses, but particularly in terms of— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a characteristically helpful intervention, but I think that it helps my point. In the constitution of an organisation it is quite right to use terms that do not have a clear justiciable precision about them, but in legislation it is different. The right place for the terminology of social solidarity is in documents relating to the health service published by the Department of Health. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.41
That is a valuable point, and it is worth reiterating the absolute commitment to the principle of free at the point of use. That is why we need the safeguard of medical necessity. This great service needs to be there for people who are using it for the right purposes, but not for the Christmas puddings and bottles of whisky that were once available. That is why I have proposed that we should replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity”, to ensure that taxpayers get value for money but that patients get exactly the service that  they require. That is of fundamental importance. It underpins everybody’s commitment to the national health service that the whole purpose of it— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.43
I am not convinced about that. We have all had constituency cases in which issues of medical necessity have arisen, where it is possible to help constituents work their way through the national health system if they have a medical necessity to ensure that they get the treatment that they need. I think that that system and the appeals within it mostly work, and they have to be based on medical necessity. The whole point of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is to try to work out whether treatments will work, whether they are necessary and whether they are funded. I believe that that was brought in by the previous Labour Government.For once, let me praise the previous Labour Government —I am glad that you are seated, Mr Bone; otherwise you might fall down in shock—for doing something that was actually pretty sensible. There has to be some independent body that works out whether such matters meet a requirement for medical necessity. If it is left entirely free and open, it is possible that money will be wasted, and that cannot be in the interests of the NHS or of taxpayers. Why do I say that that would not be in the interests of the NHS? It is of great importance that the NHS retains the support of the country at large. To retain that support, which it has overwhelmingly, it needs to be able to show that it is using its funds efficiently. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.45
I obviously do not know the hon. Gentleman’s individual constituency cases, but I have found, mostly with the constituency cases that I have had, that good sense has prevailed and that a reasonable agreement has been reached. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.47
I must confess that I entirely agree with that, because my experience, although limited—I have only been in this House for five years—is that since  the clinical commissioning groups have been in place, I have had fewer of these cases to deal with. The decisions seem to have been got right at an earlier stage. The system has also been easier to collaborate with. It seems to work more efficiently, and I think that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford deserve credit for the work they did on that Bill to make sure that it got through Parliament and allowed that to happen.I think it is a requirement that there is medical necessity. It is hard to get away from that and I do not really understand why, when there is the ability to use precise phraseology—phraseology that can be understood not just by the legal eagles, but by the nation at large—we should want to get away from that. I want to reiterate the theme that I was touching on before the previous intervention. The NHS requires the consent and support of the nation at large. It has that overwhelmingly, but the best way to keep it is if it consistently manages to do its job well. If it does its job well by medical necessity, by treating people who are ill, by the fantastic success record it has got in treating so many illnesses, but particularly in terms of— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.49
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That is invaluable work, and treating people who have had a stroke is a core part of what the national health service does. However, I seem to remember that a few years ago it told the British public how many potatoes they should eat every day, because if they ate too many they might fall ill from some related disease—they might get potato blight or something, whatever it was. The state should not be doing that. Of course it should be saying what the symptoms of a stroke are. It should put up posters and even spend money on advertising. Normally I am deeply suspicious of Government advertising, because it is often a means of promoting the party in government rather than Government generally, but, in the specific instance that he refers to, I am all in favour.I am less keen—my right hon. Friend might agree—on the Government spending a lot of money telling people not to smoke if they want to. If people have not worked out the dangers of that by now, they never will. I happen to speak as a non-smoker and, though his predilections may lie in the other direction, he is entitled to do so without being nagged by these paternalistic social assistance types who we have established are really rather disagreeable.Solidarity is more than an idealistic attitude for shaping society; it is a moral value. Solidarity exists not only between individuals, but within and between social institutions. Signs of solidarity in practice are services of neighbours, social action and mutual respect. That leads me back to why I am so concerned about legislating for social solidarity. Morality—we now see that solidarity is a moral value—is a matter for individual conscience rather than the statute book, although that has not always been the case. Many moral statutes were passed in the 16th century. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.32
I think that would be absolutely extraordinary. I have not declared this in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it has ceased to be relevant, as it happened before I was elected—but many years ago, I was a trustee of the Hospital of Saint John and Saint Elizabeth, a Catholic hospital just beyond Lord’s cricket ground. It is a private hospital, which uses its profits it makes to run a hospice charitably. That sort of wonderfully good work should be hugely encouraged, but that is a type of moral value outwith legislation. It is not necessary to legislate—indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is wrong to legislate—in this way for a moral value, which is essentially a matter of private conscience about how people conduct themselves towards one another.As I was saying, we used to legislate for moral values. We used to legislate that people had to go to church on Sundays and that they would be fined if they did not go. We had legislation on conformity, and legislation on people’s private behaviour behind closed doors. Historically, all sorts of matters were covered by legislation, but we have tended to move away from that approach to a feeling that it is not the duty of the state to tell people  how to lead their lives, and that it is the duty of the state to legislate for basic security of the state and for the institutions that the state has determined to run.That point—that it is a moral value that we are considering—means that putting that moral value in legislation is a rather backwards step. I find myself surprised to oppose something old-fashioned; I normally like things that are old-fashioned. However, on this occasion it is unsuitable for legislation.I thought that it might be worth giving some examples of the non-legislative social solidarity that is shown by the Church. Pope Francis celebrated mass on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa to commemorate thousands of migrants who died crossing the sea from north Africa. That is the Holy Father putting into action social solidarity with people from an underprivileged part of the world, and a part of the world at risk, but it is not a legislative matter.In these few remarks, I hope that I have made it clear why social solidarity is unsuitable for legislation. Either it is merely woolly talk—something that is unjusticiable, and spin to say what decent jolly people we are that we like motherhood and apple pie—or it is an example of the social teaching of the Catholic Church, which in itself is a good thing, but it would be quite a break for this House of Commons, with an established Church of England, to start legislating for the social teaching of the Catholic Church, although there is one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches of the Committee who may think that that is a jolly good thing. He is a very sound hon. Member in many respects, but I am still not sure that, even with his support, we should incorporate into our domestic law the rules of Holy Mother Church.That covers one or two of my amendments, because they take out the term “social solidarity” where it appears and replace it with the term “medical necessity”. Let me go back to the term “medical necessity”, and why I have used it. I have touched on this in answering some interventions. I think it is an important part of the objective of the Bill, and what a private Member’s Bill, and indeed legislation, is about.There is an argument that the Government set up a service and pay for it. Of course, taxpayers pay for it, because the Government have no money. Other than, arguably, the Crown estates, there is no actual Government money; there is simply taxpayers’ money. And once the Government have decided to spend that money on that service, anything that leads to a charge on that expenditure then becomes a matter of concern to the Government. We can see the slippery slope argument advancing: the Government pay for the service; therefore, if someone does x, they may be at risk of y; y will have a cost of z; the Government do not want to pay for z; and therefore one must not do whatever letter it was that I started with—I think it was x. Therefore, if someone does that, they are either to pay or they ought to be penalised for doing it; it ought to be made illegal and there ought to be some punishment.I wanted to bring matters back to medical necessity, because that takes the issue away from the ability of the Government to go down that slippery slope. The terminology—“medical necessity”—is pretty clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said in interventions that they thought the phrase “medical necessity” was too tight, and that there could be occasions  on which medical necessity could not be absolutely shown or there were two different options that could be used, one cheaper and one more expensive. It may be, then, that should this amendment be accepted, further amendments to tidy up the language will be tabled on Report, or else perhaps their lordships may consider the matter.As I have mentioned the battle of Waterloo, I suppose I should mention Lord Raglan, who had his arm amputated at that battle. That may or may not have been a medical necessity, although they thought it was at the time. The great thing about it, brave man as he was, was that they cut his arm off and threw it on to a pile of limbs in the surgery where the amputation was taking place, but he shouted, “Oi, there is a very valuable ring on my finger, which you have just discarded. I want it back,” and he got the ring back. I must say that that seems to me to be the height of courage—to remember, on having just had an arm cut off, that there was a valuable ring on it and demand the ring back.One wonders what Lord Raglan might rather have had done to him in terms of medical necessity. I suppose that in those times the amputation was necessary, whereas now there would be other forms of treatment—although someone could have an old-fashioned doctor who might say that he would rather do an amputation. I therefore see why hon. Members want to tidy up, tighten and reinforce the concept of medical necessity so that we do not find that doctors are doing things that are out of date or are beneficial but not necessarily within the bounds of absolute necessity. There are discussions to be had around degrees of necessity, but something like the phrasing in the amendment needs to be in the Bill.The health service is there to look after people who are ill, free at the point of use. I doubt there is a person in this room who would wish to challenge that fundamental principle. It is a principle beloved of the British people. But it is about medical necessity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.34
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reiterating that point. It is a fundamental principle shared on a cross-party basis—even the UK Independence party has come round to it after a brief flirtation with other views. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.36
I am grateful, Mr Bone, to get back to the issue of medical necessity—we can wander back.The point of the NHS being free at the point of use is that it applies to things that are medically necessary, not to things that may be optional. What are those going to be? They are hard to define, but doctors used to be able to prescribe bottles of whisky for their patients, back in the 1970s—I think it was Margaret Thatcher who made that impossible through one of her legislative reforms—and Christmas puddings if they thought that would be good for patients who needed building up. Those things are now no longer deemed medically necessary even though a nice Christmas pudding may be a good thing to have and a bottle of whisky may be equally welcome. It is not my drink of choice, but people may wish to have one; however, again, it is not a medical necessity.That is why we need to hone our terminology and phraseology to make sure that what is being done constitutes the right use of hard-pressed and hard-working taxpayers’ money. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.39
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That is invaluable work, and treating people who have had a stroke is a core part of what the national health service does. However, I seem to remember that a few years ago it told the British public how many potatoes they should eat every day, because if they ate too many they might fall ill from some related disease—they might get potato blight or something, whatever it was. The state should not be doing that. Of course it should be saying what the symptoms of a stroke are. It should put up posters and even spend money on advertising. Normally I am deeply suspicious of Government advertising, because it is often a means of promoting the party in government rather than Government generally, but, in the specific instance that he refers to, I am all in favour.I am less keen—my right hon. Friend might agree—on the Government spending a lot of money telling people not to smoke if they want to. If people have not worked out the dangers of that by now, they never will. I happen to speak as a non-smoker and, though his predilections may lie in the other direction, he is entitled to do so without being nagged by these paternalistic social assistance types who we have established are really rather disagreeable.Solidarity is more than an idealistic attitude for shaping society; it is a moral value. Solidarity exists not only between individuals, but within and between social institutions. Signs of solidarity in practice are services of neighbours, social action and mutual respect. That leads me back to why I am so concerned about legislating for social solidarity. Morality—we now see that solidarity is a moral value—is a matter for individual conscience rather than the statute book, although that has not always been the case. Many moral statutes were passed in the 16th century. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.32
I think that would be absolutely extraordinary. I have not declared this in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it has ceased to be relevant, as it happened before I was elected—but many years ago, I was a trustee of the Hospital of Saint John and Saint Elizabeth, a Catholic hospital just beyond Lord’s cricket ground. It is a private hospital, which uses its profits it makes to run a hospice charitably. That sort of wonderfully good work should be hugely encouraged, but that is a type of moral value outwith legislation. It is not necessary to legislate—indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is wrong to legislate—in this way for a moral value, which is essentially a matter of private conscience about how people conduct themselves towards one another.As I was saying, we used to legislate for moral values. We used to legislate that people had to go to church on Sundays and that they would be fined if they did not go. We had legislation on conformity, and legislation on people’s private behaviour behind closed doors. Historically, all sorts of matters were covered by legislation, but we have tended to move away from that approach to a feeling that it is not the duty of the state to tell people  how to lead their lives, and that it is the duty of the state to legislate for basic security of the state and for the institutions that the state has determined to run.That point—that it is a moral value that we are considering—means that putting that moral value in legislation is a rather backwards step. I find myself surprised to oppose something old-fashioned; I normally like things that are old-fashioned. However, on this occasion it is unsuitable for legislation.I thought that it might be worth giving some examples of the non-legislative social solidarity that is shown by the Church. Pope Francis celebrated mass on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa to commemorate thousands of migrants who died crossing the sea from north Africa. That is the Holy Father putting into action social solidarity with people from an underprivileged part of the world, and a part of the world at risk, but it is not a legislative matter.In these few remarks, I hope that I have made it clear why social solidarity is unsuitable for legislation. Either it is merely woolly talk—something that is unjusticiable, and spin to say what decent jolly people we are that we like motherhood and apple pie—or it is an example of the social teaching of the Catholic Church, which in itself is a good thing, but it would be quite a break for this House of Commons, with an established Church of England, to start legislating for the social teaching of the Catholic Church, although there is one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches of the Committee who may think that that is a jolly good thing. He is a very sound hon. Member in many respects, but I am still not sure that, even with his support, we should incorporate into our domestic law the rules of Holy Mother Church.That covers one or two of my amendments, because they take out the term “social solidarity” where it appears and replace it with the term “medical necessity”. Let me go back to the term “medical necessity”, and why I have used it. I have touched on this in answering some interventions. I think it is an important part of the objective of the Bill, and what a private Member’s Bill, and indeed legislation, is about.There is an argument that the Government set up a service and pay for it. Of course, taxpayers pay for it, because the Government have no money. Other than, arguably, the Crown estates, there is no actual Government money; there is simply taxpayers’ money. And once the Government have decided to spend that money on that service, anything that leads to a charge on that expenditure then becomes a matter of concern to the Government. We can see the slippery slope argument advancing: the Government pay for the service; therefore, if someone does x, they may be at risk of y; y will have a cost of z; the Government do not want to pay for z; and therefore one must not do whatever letter it was that I started with—I think it was x. Therefore, if someone does that, they are either to pay or they ought to be penalised for doing it; it ought to be made illegal and there ought to be some punishment.I wanted to bring matters back to medical necessity, because that takes the issue away from the ability of the Government to go down that slippery slope. The terminology—“medical necessity”—is pretty clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said in interventions that they thought the phrase “medical necessity” was too tight, and that there could be occasions  on which medical necessity could not be absolutely shown or there were two different options that could be used, one cheaper and one more expensive. It may be, then, that should this amendment be accepted, further amendments to tidy up the language will be tabled on Report, or else perhaps their lordships may consider the matter.As I have mentioned the battle of Waterloo, I suppose I should mention Lord Raglan, who had his arm amputated at that battle. That may or may not have been a medical necessity, although they thought it was at the time. The great thing about it, brave man as he was, was that they cut his arm off and threw it on to a pile of limbs in the surgery where the amputation was taking place, but he shouted, “Oi, there is a very valuable ring on my finger, which you have just discarded. I want it back,” and he got the ring back. I must say that that seems to me to be the height of courage—to remember, on having just had an arm cut off, that there was a valuable ring on it and demand the ring back.One wonders what Lord Raglan might rather have had done to him in terms of medical necessity. I suppose that in those times the amputation was necessary, whereas now there would be other forms of treatment—although someone could have an old-fashioned doctor who might say that he would rather do an amputation. I therefore see why hon. Members want to tidy up, tighten and reinforce the concept of medical necessity so that we do not find that doctors are doing things that are out of date or are beneficial but not necessarily within the bounds of absolute necessity. There are discussions to be had around degrees of necessity, but something like the phrasing in the amendment needs to be in the Bill.The health service is there to look after people who are ill, free at the point of use. I doubt there is a person in this room who would wish to challenge that fundamental principle. It is a principle beloved of the British people. But it is about medical necessity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.34
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reiterating that point. It is a fundamental principle shared on a cross-party basis—even the UK Independence party has come round to it after a brief flirtation with other views. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.36
I am grateful, Mr Bone, to get back to the issue of medical necessity—we can wander back.The point of the NHS being free at the point of use is that it applies to things that are medically necessary, not to things that may be optional. What are those going to be? They are hard to define, but doctors used to be able to prescribe bottles of whisky for their patients, back in the 1970s—I think it was Margaret Thatcher who made that impossible through one of her legislative reforms—and Christmas puddings if they thought that would be good for patients who needed building up. Those things are now no longer deemed medically necessary even though a nice Christmas pudding may be a good thing to have and a bottle of whisky may be equally welcome. It is not my drink of choice, but people may wish to have one; however, again, it is not a medical necessity.That is why we need to hone our terminology and phraseology to make sure that what is being done constitutes the right use of hard-pressed and hard-working taxpayers’ money. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.39
Yes, absolutely it would. I am very suspicious of the Government telling me that I should not eat things such as bacon sandwiches, or whatever it is that Labour party members so much enjoy. I want to eat those things without interference from the Government. I have every intention of speaking on that important matter later in my remarks. I have tabled other amendments to make it absolutely clear that I think that the health service is about curing people who are ill, rather than telling us how to live our lives. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.13
I am sympathetic to what my right hon. Friend is saying. It is one thing for the health service, as a matter of medical necessity—that is the term I used—to prescribe statins. They are a medical advance and an advantage that help people to eat more nice things. They are an absolutely wonderful medical breakthrough. I tuck into my statins so I can tuck into my chocolate éclairs. The two go hand in glove and add to the general joy and happiness of life. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.15
That is a good question. Yes, I do. Otherwise I would not be able to eat my chocolate éclairs, and the cream that comes from dairy farmers—in Somerset, I hope—would not be produced. It is therefore not only a medical necessity but an economic imperative, in order for the good people of north-east Somerset to prosper from their sale of dairy produce. Medical necessity allows for preventive treatments; it does not allow for telling people how to live their lives. We want to maximise free choice rather than giving detailed instruction. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.17
I am not convinced by that. I think that it is a medical necessity to give somebody a basic cure for an illness from which they suffer. That is the purpose of a medical necessity. If my right hon. Friend took his argument to its logical conclusion, almost nothing would be a medical necessity, because all of us die eventually. It is a question of getting the balance right between that and interference in people’s lives. If somebody does not want a cataract operation, I would not send the police round to arrest them, bring them to hospital and force it upon them. To that extent, it is not absolutely necessary, but none the less, it is a perfectly reasonable and important medical procedure. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.19
I am grateful for that intervention, because the great virtue of medical necessity is that it allows practice to evolve. Not only might what is necessary change over the course of somebody’s life; it might also evolve over succeeding generations. As medical practice becomes more advanced and more successful, things that might not have been necessary because they were disproportionately risky might become in 20 years, let alone 50, so easy to perform and so routine that the balance of necessity shifts in that direction. Medical necessity is a term with the virtues of being understandable and clear and being able to grow with legislation over the years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.21
I am grateful for that intervention, but no. Choices must be made in the health service; it is a question of where those choices are made. Are they  made centrally or by the clinical commissioning groups or hospitals concerned, or is there a mix of approaches, so that as many decisions as possible are made locally but some are made nationally, or there is some form of appeal nationally? I would go for a mixed and relatively flexible system that encompasses what the hon. Gentleman is talking about while leaving the first decision to be made locally, by the people who are closest to their patients and know them best. That is why I stick to the point about medical necessity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.23
There is less disagreement between the two of us than might be immediately apparent. It seems to me that the core requirements of the health service can reasonably be set by the Secretary of State. However, the question is then: what are those core requirements? In my view, they are medical necessity, not social solidarity, because social solidarity is a relatively flexible term. It is very imprecise and difficult to litigate around because it is essentially a philosophical or theological notion, as I have tried to explain and, indeed, will come back to explain. Medical necessity is layman’s English and is understandable to almost anyone. Of course, whether one thing is strictly necessary or not can be argued and decided. There is, as in all cases, a determination to be made, but the basis on which that determination is being made is clear. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.25
My right hon. Friend has, as he so often does, hit the nail on the head. “Rem acu tetigisti” is, I believe, the phrase that the classicists liked to use. I only know that from my reading of P. G. Wodehouse; I have never read it in its original form. My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on; it is about health. It is about both the “national” and the “health”. We are not dealing with vagaries.The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made a point about localism and national provision. Helpfully, that too is covered by the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of social solidarity. Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope Emeritus, explained in “Caritas in Veritate”:“The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.”That seems to me a really important point that has perhaps not been considered in debates on the Bill. Surprisingly, it is the left that is looking for a paternalist social assistance model in its terminology. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.27
I am concerned that you should be tired, Mr Bone. It might be helpful if the Committee adjourned so that we can have a siesta and resume later, but perhaps, in spite of our European involvement, we are not that continental.There are two points to make in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eltham. First, I pay for my statins personally, rather than making a charge on the national health service. Secondly, I have tabled amendment 40, which would deal with precisely the point that he made. He will be reassured to know that I am looking forward to coming on to that amendment at a later stage in my relatively brief remarks.I want to come on to what it means to practise social solidarity, sticking to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that we may have a full understanding of what is going on, having made the point that having solidarity without subsidiarity gives way to paternalist social assistance. We do not want this rather condescending model of the health service telling people how to lead their lives—how they should eat, exercise and so forth—in this deeply paternalistic way. We want a health service that allows people the maximum amount of freedom in their lives, with liberty to do as they choose rather than saying, “Because the state pays for it, we must determine.”I always agree with Pope Benedict XVI, who is one of the great men of our time, but on that point he is so right and helpful to the debate that he might almost have written his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” specifically for the debate we have in hand, although I have a feeling that he did not, because it predates the presentation of the Bill to this House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.30
Yes, absolutely it would. I am very suspicious of the Government telling me that I should not eat things such as bacon sandwiches, or whatever it is that Labour party members so much enjoy. I want to eat those things without interference from the Government. I have every intention of speaking on that important matter later in my remarks. I have tabled other amendments to make it absolutely clear that I think that the health service is about curing people who are ill, rather than telling us how to live our lives. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.13
I am sympathetic to what my right hon. Friend is saying. It is one thing for the health service, as a matter of medical necessity—that is the term I used—to prescribe statins. They are a medical advance and an advantage that help people to eat more nice things. They are an absolutely wonderful medical breakthrough. I tuck into my statins so I can tuck into my chocolate éclairs. The two go hand in glove and add to the general joy and happiness of life. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.15
That is a good question. Yes, I do. Otherwise I would not be able to eat my chocolate éclairs, and the cream that comes from dairy farmers—in Somerset, I hope—would not be produced. It is therefore not only a medical necessity but an economic imperative, in order for the good people of north-east Somerset to prosper from their sale of dairy produce. Medical necessity allows for preventive treatments; it does not allow for telling people how to live their lives. We want to maximise free choice rather than giving detailed instruction. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.17
I am not convinced by that. I think that it is a medical necessity to give somebody a basic cure for an illness from which they suffer. That is the purpose of a medical necessity. If my right hon. Friend took his argument to its logical conclusion, almost nothing would be a medical necessity, because all of us die eventually. It is a question of getting the balance right between that and interference in people’s lives. If somebody does not want a cataract operation, I would not send the police round to arrest them, bring them to hospital and force it upon them. To that extent, it is not absolutely necessary, but none the less, it is a perfectly reasonable and important medical procedure. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.19
I am grateful for that intervention, because the great virtue of medical necessity is that it allows practice to evolve. Not only might what is necessary change over the course of somebody’s life; it might also evolve over succeeding generations. As medical practice becomes more advanced and more successful, things that might not have been necessary because they were disproportionately risky might become in 20 years, let alone 50, so easy to perform and so routine that the balance of necessity shifts in that direction. Medical necessity is a term with the virtues of being understandable and clear and being able to grow with legislation over the years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.21
I am grateful for that intervention, but no. Choices must be made in the health service; it is a question of where those choices are made. Are they  made centrally or by the clinical commissioning groups or hospitals concerned, or is there a mix of approaches, so that as many decisions as possible are made locally but some are made nationally, or there is some form of appeal nationally? I would go for a mixed and relatively flexible system that encompasses what the hon. Gentleman is talking about while leaving the first decision to be made locally, by the people who are closest to their patients and know them best. That is why I stick to the point about medical necessity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.23
There is less disagreement between the two of us than might be immediately apparent. It seems to me that the core requirements of the health service can reasonably be set by the Secretary of State. However, the question is then: what are those core requirements? In my view, they are medical necessity, not social solidarity, because social solidarity is a relatively flexible term. It is very imprecise and difficult to litigate around because it is essentially a philosophical or theological notion, as I have tried to explain and, indeed, will come back to explain. Medical necessity is layman’s English and is understandable to almost anyone. Of course, whether one thing is strictly necessary or not can be argued and decided. There is, as in all cases, a determination to be made, but the basis on which that determination is being made is clear. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.25
My right hon. Friend has, as he so often does, hit the nail on the head. “Rem acu tetigisti” is, I believe, the phrase that the classicists liked to use. I only know that from my reading of P. G. Wodehouse; I have never read it in its original form. My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on; it is about health. It is about both the “national” and the “health”. We are not dealing with vagaries.The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made a point about localism and national provision. Helpfully, that too is covered by the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of social solidarity. Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope Emeritus, explained in “Caritas in Veritate”:“The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.”That seems to me a really important point that has perhaps not been considered in debates on the Bill. Surprisingly, it is the left that is looking for a paternalist social assistance model in its terminology. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.27
I am concerned that you should be tired, Mr Bone. It might be helpful if the Committee adjourned so that we can have a siesta and resume later, but perhaps, in spite of our European involvement, we are not that continental.There are two points to make in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eltham. First, I pay for my statins personally, rather than making a charge on the national health service. Secondly, I have tabled amendment 40, which would deal with precisely the point that he made. He will be reassured to know that I am looking forward to coming on to that amendment at a later stage in my relatively brief remarks.I want to come on to what it means to practise social solidarity, sticking to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that we may have a full understanding of what is going on, having made the point that having solidarity without subsidiarity gives way to paternalist social assistance. We do not want this rather condescending model of the health service telling people how to lead their lives—how they should eat, exercise and so forth—in this deeply paternalistic way. We want a health service that allows people the maximum amount of freedom in their lives, with liberty to do as they choose rather than saying, “Because the state pays for it, we must determine.”I always agree with Pope Benedict XVI, who is one of the great men of our time, but on that point he is so right and helpful to the debate that he might almost have written his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” specifically for the debate we have in hand, although I have a feeling that he did not, because it predates the presentation of the Bill to this House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.30
Mr Bone, what joy you bring into our lives with your announcement that we may be here all night! I have been looking forward to this ever since I was elected to Parliament. We can model ourselves on the late Charles Stewart Parnell, who knew how to keep things going properly. None of that namby-pamby finishing at 7 o’clock and going to the theatre—we will show what proper parliamentarians are about.I thought that, before resuming my comments—I think that I had just got to considering the social solidarity that Bonaparte experienced and exhibited to his soldiers—I might tell the Committee that, in preparation for this effort, I made sure that I ate fish for lunch, because as members of the Committee will know, fish is very good for the brain, and to have one’s brain functioning as fluidly and effectively as possible when debating these important topics is of the highest importance.Let me talk about Bonaparte, because I have given credit to the Duke of Wellington, the Iron Duke, a former Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, who created a great deal of social solidarity with his troops when he went into battle at Waterloo. I am thinking of the formation of the square that made it so difficult for the enemy to attack—that coming together of a body of men in social solidarity to ensure that they could not be defeated.It was well known that Bonaparte’s troops came together in a most effective way because of the feeling of solidarity that he, a self-proclaimed emperor, created among the forces at his disposal. It was said that his leadership was worth having an extra division in a battle. He was that effective a leader, although, it has to be said, a most awful man. None the less, awful though he was, evil though he was and tyrannical though he was, he could inspire his people and his soldiers, through social solidarity, to come together as a body to be more effective in their battles than they would otherwise have been. He showed that in so many of his battles, including the famous battle of Austerlitz, which of course he wins against the Austrians. Indeed, even when he returns from Elba—“Able was I ere I left Elba”. Many members of the Committee may be familiar with the palindrome. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.3
I am so grateful for the correction from my right hon. Friend. Bonaparte left and created social solidarity with the people of France—liberty, fraternity and egality, which they were so keen on as long as Napoleon was emperor, but that is an aside. He created the social solidarity that made him a force to be reckoned with, until he came across the greater social solidarity expressed by the Iron Duke in the form of the square at Waterloo that made it so difficult for Napoleon to win and, indeed, led to his defeat and his exile on St Helena, where he spent the last few years of his life—perhaps he was poisoned with arsenic, or perhaps not. At the heart of it is social solidarity, but how do we legislate for that? How do we legislate for a Bonaparte, of all things? How do we say that we must have this in the national health service—that we must have this model dictator put into our legislation and then made justiciable?Of course, it is more than that. I have given examples from Agincourt and Waterloo, but social solidarity is not an ancient habit. It is unquestionably more up to  date than the 15th and 19th centuries. If one looks back only 100 years, which is a mere bagatelle in these terms, the first world war is a great example of social solidarity. I am thinking of the troops who came from communities, from villages, from towns, who formed together. They did that before conscription came in: they did not need the state to bring together their social solidarity. They needed to do it because it was in their hearts, as I know it is in the heart of the hon. Member for Eltham.Social solidarity is not a matter of legislation; it is a matter of feeling, of inner sense, and we have seen it throughout our history. Another example is the battle of Britain, when we had social solidarity in the air. It did not need necessarily to be on the ground. The few who fought the battle of Britain, to whom we owe so much, had a solidarity not just with each other but with the nation as a whole. They had the same coming together, the same spirit, that allowed the nation to stand up against the greatest threat and terror that it had ever faced in its long history. As Winston Churchill said, whose death 50 years ago we commemorate,“if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour’”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]It was a very fine example of a coming together of a people with guidance, unquestionably with leadership, with social solidarity, but not a social solidarity that could be legislated for.That is why I have tabled an amendment against social solidarity. I think that we have it. It is an inner sense. It is not a sense one can put into law.It occurred to me that it is worth looking at the question of social solidarity in its broader context so that the Committee may come to a fuller understanding of what the term means. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, who is no longer in his place but who will, no doubt, be here in a matter of moments, raised a philosophical point while I was speaking before the lunch interval. It is noticeable that in the Commons we take a longer lunch interval than they do at Lord’s—I mean Lord’s, not the House of Lords. Before the lunch interval, he made a deeply philosophical point about social solidarity. I thought, therefore, that it was worth examining how social solidarity fits in to the teaching of the Catholic Church, because this must be at the heart of what the hon. Member for Eltham is trying to get at.Let us start with Boniface VIII and his papal bull, “Unam sanctam”, which sets out a very high level of claim for the authority of the Church in relation to social solidarity and how much its spiritual rights trump those of the temporal authorities. The more modern interpretation of social solidarity really starts with Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, “Rerum novarum”. That sets out the social solidarity between peoples of different types and how they should work together. It is, I am glad to say, a document that is very against socialism; he thought that socialism was extremely dangerous. It says, in relation to social solidarity, that it was the primary purpose of the state to provide for the common good, that all people have equal dignity, regardless of social class and that a good Government protects the rights and cares for the needs of all its members, both rich and poor. It carries on:“As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal”.This is at the heart of social solidarity.“The members”of various classes“are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth...Therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of”all classes,“otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due”.Leo XIII also pointed out that everyone is in some way a contributor to social solidarity. Some are leaders and thus more conspicuous. Others are less visible and may seem, individually at least, to contribute less, but everyone’s contribution is important. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
I am grateful for that intervention. I will have to leave the history of the term “social solidarity” to my right hon. Friend to elaborate on. I do not know the first occasion of it being used, but I do know that it is an important underpinning of the modern social teaching of the Catholic Church and must therefore be relevant to the clause under consideration, because we are trying to work out what social solidarity means. I tabled an amendment to take it out, but I do not want to do that if it turns out that it means something that is useful to the Bill and that would be helpful and ensure that the country were better governed. By the description that I am able to give to it, and by the understanding that we are elucidating through this debate, we may understand that it is not a concept that we ought to have in the legislation. [ Interruption. ] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.7
Thank you, Mr Bone. I was momentarily worried when you stood up that there may be some other point of order that you were going to raise—perhaps a concern that the Order Paper mentions that the Committee would meet at 2 o’clock, before we had decided— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.9
I am extremely grateful, Mr Bone, for your characteristic clarity of thought. It is of great assistance to all of us on the Committee who labour to improve the legislation of the House of Commons.Social solidarity is a concept that comes from the Catholic Church, initially from “Rerum novarum”, but is developed further. It carries on and becomes important in later encyclicals. On the 40th anniversary of “Rerum novarum”, Pius XI developed it in “Quadragesimo anno”, in which he talks of the social order and the social solidarity that comes from that. He says that, because industrialisation resulted in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities got absorbed by larger ones, a society of individuals became a mass and class society. This was a  matter of concern to him. He felt that this was making things harder and that we needed to see greater solidarity and subsidiarity than are present in capitalism, so it is quite interesting.“Quadragesimo anno” is moving in a more socialist direction than “Rerum novarum” in its elucidating of social solidarity. This, as a non-socialist, gives me a degree of concern about the trend in the Church to which I am pleased to belong and view myself as an obedient and loyal servant. Fortunately—I thought this might be helpful background—such teachings, although important, do not meet the qualification for infallibility laid down by the first Vatican Council. Although they are worth taking into account, they do not have that fundamental authority that an ex cathedra statement would have.So we see this development in the idea of social solidarity moving in a socialist direction and away from the rather greater clarity that one has with Leo XIII, who is a believer in property rights and thinks that socialism is a particularly dangerous form of political belief, a view which I must confess I share, so I am perhaps a Leo XIII style papist, rather than a Pius XI one. To be perfectly honest, I am more Pius XI. He was nicknamed Pio No No because he said, “No, no” to everything, which is a view that I think could often be well applied to ambitious legislation that tries to upset the Government’s programme.If we come back to the Church’s teaching on solidarity, away from Pio No No, where does it come from? What is the origin of this idea? It has a very biblical instruction. This may refer to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Although the term is not used, it is drawn from St Luke’s gospel: do to others as you would have them do to you. That is the basis of social solidarity and understanding—going back to Genesis—that we are our brother’s keeper to some extent. We must have a consideration for those who are within society but are not immediately connected to us.It has been said that solidarity is one of the most embracing of the central teachings of the Church. It essentially means—and I am very pleased by this—that we are all in it together. Is it not interesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing little more than quoting St Luke’s gospel when he tells us that we are all in it together? I had not previously realised our great Chancellor’s divine inspiration in his understanding of social solidarity.To quote the late St John Paul II in “Sollicitudo rei socialis”—“socialis” is not, in this context, anything to do with socialism—“We are all one family in the world. Building a community that empowers”—I am sorry, but “empowers” is a ghastly word. As the encyclical would have been written in Latin, His Holiness would not have used such an ugly word; it is merely the way it has been translated.“Building a community that empowers everyone to attain their full potential through each of us respecting each other’s dignity, rights and responsibilities makes the world a better place to live.”That is a more up-to-date view from a most distinguished Holy Father.Solidarity is the concept that we are connected with our neighbours in our towns and villages, across the country and around the world. It is about thinking not just about ourselves. It actually ties in with overseas aid, because we have social solidarity not just nationally but internationally. However, in the context of a Bill on the national health service, I am afraid that that concerns me. Although, in a social and spiritual sense, the concept of social solidarity is important, do we really want inadvertently to put into the Bill the ability for people who do not have a right to care in this country to get it through social solidarity? Are we saying that our global social solidarity is something that the NHS is going to take care of, or is it a matter that we should deal with in other budgets and through other means? That is why I keep saying that precision is essential to good legislation, and that nice words that are not precise are extremely unfortunate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.11
Mr Bone, what joy you bring into our lives with your announcement that we may be here all night! I have been looking forward to this ever since I was elected to Parliament. We can model ourselves on the late Charles Stewart Parnell, who knew how to keep things going properly. None of that namby-pamby finishing at 7 o’clock and going to the theatre—we will show what proper parliamentarians are about.I thought that, before resuming my comments—I think that I had just got to considering the social solidarity that Bonaparte experienced and exhibited to his soldiers—I might tell the Committee that, in preparation for this effort, I made sure that I ate fish for lunch, because as members of the Committee will know, fish is very good for the brain, and to have one’s brain functioning as fluidly and effectively as possible when debating these important topics is of the highest importance.Let me talk about Bonaparte, because I have given credit to the Duke of Wellington, the Iron Duke, a former Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, who created a great deal of social solidarity with his troops when he went into battle at Waterloo. I am thinking of the formation of the square that made it so difficult for the enemy to attack—that coming together of a body of men in social solidarity to ensure that they could not be defeated.It was well known that Bonaparte’s troops came together in a most effective way because of the feeling of solidarity that he, a self-proclaimed emperor, created among the forces at his disposal. It was said that his leadership was worth having an extra division in a battle. He was that effective a leader, although, it has to be said, a most awful man. None the less, awful though he was, evil though he was and tyrannical though he was, he could inspire his people and his soldiers, through social solidarity, to come together as a body to be more effective in their battles than they would otherwise have been. He showed that in so many of his battles, including the famous battle of Austerlitz, which of course he wins against the Austrians. Indeed, even when he returns from Elba—“Able was I ere I left Elba”. Many members of the Committee may be familiar with the palindrome. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.3
I am so grateful for the correction from my right hon. Friend. Bonaparte left and created social solidarity with the people of France—liberty, fraternity and egality, which they were so keen on as long as Napoleon was emperor, but that is an aside. He created the social solidarity that made him a force to be reckoned with, until he came across the greater social solidarity expressed by the Iron Duke in the form of the square at Waterloo that made it so difficult for Napoleon to win and, indeed, led to his defeat and his exile on St Helena, where he spent the last few years of his life—perhaps he was poisoned with arsenic, or perhaps not. At the heart of it is social solidarity, but how do we legislate for that? How do we legislate for a Bonaparte, of all things? How do we say that we must have this in the national health service—that we must have this model dictator put into our legislation and then made justiciable?Of course, it is more than that. I have given examples from Agincourt and Waterloo, but social solidarity is not an ancient habit. It is unquestionably more up to  date than the 15th and 19th centuries. If one looks back only 100 years, which is a mere bagatelle in these terms, the first world war is a great example of social solidarity. I am thinking of the troops who came from communities, from villages, from towns, who formed together. They did that before conscription came in: they did not need the state to bring together their social solidarity. They needed to do it because it was in their hearts, as I know it is in the heart of the hon. Member for Eltham.Social solidarity is not a matter of legislation; it is a matter of feeling, of inner sense, and we have seen it throughout our history. Another example is the battle of Britain, when we had social solidarity in the air. It did not need necessarily to be on the ground. The few who fought the battle of Britain, to whom we owe so much, had a solidarity not just with each other but with the nation as a whole. They had the same coming together, the same spirit, that allowed the nation to stand up against the greatest threat and terror that it had ever faced in its long history. As Winston Churchill said, whose death 50 years ago we commemorate,“if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour’”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]It was a very fine example of a coming together of a people with guidance, unquestionably with leadership, with social solidarity, but not a social solidarity that could be legislated for.That is why I have tabled an amendment against social solidarity. I think that we have it. It is an inner sense. It is not a sense one can put into law.It occurred to me that it is worth looking at the question of social solidarity in its broader context so that the Committee may come to a fuller understanding of what the term means. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, who is no longer in his place but who will, no doubt, be here in a matter of moments, raised a philosophical point while I was speaking before the lunch interval. It is noticeable that in the Commons we take a longer lunch interval than they do at Lord’s—I mean Lord’s, not the House of Lords. Before the lunch interval, he made a deeply philosophical point about social solidarity. I thought, therefore, that it was worth examining how social solidarity fits in to the teaching of the Catholic Church, because this must be at the heart of what the hon. Member for Eltham is trying to get at.Let us start with Boniface VIII and his papal bull, “Unam sanctam”, which sets out a very high level of claim for the authority of the Church in relation to social solidarity and how much its spiritual rights trump those of the temporal authorities. The more modern interpretation of social solidarity really starts with Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, “Rerum novarum”. That sets out the social solidarity between peoples of different types and how they should work together. It is, I am glad to say, a document that is very against socialism; he thought that socialism was extremely dangerous. It says, in relation to social solidarity, that it was the primary purpose of the state to provide for the common good, that all people have equal dignity, regardless of social class and that a good Government protects the rights and cares for the needs of all its members, both rich and poor. It carries on:“As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal”.This is at the heart of social solidarity.“The members”of various classes“are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth...Therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of”all classes,“otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due”.Leo XIII also pointed out that everyone is in some way a contributor to social solidarity. Some are leaders and thus more conspicuous. Others are less visible and may seem, individually at least, to contribute less, but everyone’s contribution is important. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
I am grateful for that intervention. I will have to leave the history of the term “social solidarity” to my right hon. Friend to elaborate on. I do not know the first occasion of it being used, but I do know that it is an important underpinning of the modern social teaching of the Catholic Church and must therefore be relevant to the clause under consideration, because we are trying to work out what social solidarity means. I tabled an amendment to take it out, but I do not want to do that if it turns out that it means something that is useful to the Bill and that would be helpful and ensure that the country were better governed. By the description that I am able to give to it, and by the understanding that we are elucidating through this debate, we may understand that it is not a concept that we ought to have in the legislation. [ Interruption. ] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.7
Thank you, Mr Bone. I was momentarily worried when you stood up that there may be some other point of order that you were going to raise—perhaps a concern that the Order Paper mentions that the Committee would meet at 2 o’clock, before we had decided— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.9
I am extremely grateful, Mr Bone, for your characteristic clarity of thought. It is of great assistance to all of us on the Committee who labour to improve the legislation of the House of Commons.Social solidarity is a concept that comes from the Catholic Church, initially from “Rerum novarum”, but is developed further. It carries on and becomes important in later encyclicals. On the 40th anniversary of “Rerum novarum”, Pius XI developed it in “Quadragesimo anno”, in which he talks of the social order and the social solidarity that comes from that. He says that, because industrialisation resulted in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities got absorbed by larger ones, a society of individuals became a mass and class society. This was a  matter of concern to him. He felt that this was making things harder and that we needed to see greater solidarity and subsidiarity than are present in capitalism, so it is quite interesting.“Quadragesimo anno” is moving in a more socialist direction than “Rerum novarum” in its elucidating of social solidarity. This, as a non-socialist, gives me a degree of concern about the trend in the Church to which I am pleased to belong and view myself as an obedient and loyal servant. Fortunately—I thought this might be helpful background—such teachings, although important, do not meet the qualification for infallibility laid down by the first Vatican Council. Although they are worth taking into account, they do not have that fundamental authority that an ex cathedra statement would have.So we see this development in the idea of social solidarity moving in a socialist direction and away from the rather greater clarity that one has with Leo XIII, who is a believer in property rights and thinks that socialism is a particularly dangerous form of political belief, a view which I must confess I share, so I am perhaps a Leo XIII style papist, rather than a Pius XI one. To be perfectly honest, I am more Pius XI. He was nicknamed Pio No No because he said, “No, no” to everything, which is a view that I think could often be well applied to ambitious legislation that tries to upset the Government’s programme.If we come back to the Church’s teaching on solidarity, away from Pio No No, where does it come from? What is the origin of this idea? It has a very biblical instruction. This may refer to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Although the term is not used, it is drawn from St Luke’s gospel: do to others as you would have them do to you. That is the basis of social solidarity and understanding—going back to Genesis—that we are our brother’s keeper to some extent. We must have a consideration for those who are within society but are not immediately connected to us.It has been said that solidarity is one of the most embracing of the central teachings of the Church. It essentially means—and I am very pleased by this—that we are all in it together. Is it not interesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing little more than quoting St Luke’s gospel when he tells us that we are all in it together? I had not previously realised our great Chancellor’s divine inspiration in his understanding of social solidarity.To quote the late St John Paul II in “Sollicitudo rei socialis”—“socialis” is not, in this context, anything to do with socialism—“We are all one family in the world. Building a community that empowers”—I am sorry, but “empowers” is a ghastly word. As the encyclical would have been written in Latin, His Holiness would not have used such an ugly word; it is merely the way it has been translated.“Building a community that empowers everyone to attain their full potential through each of us respecting each other’s dignity, rights and responsibilities makes the world a better place to live.”That is a more up-to-date view from a most distinguished Holy Father.Solidarity is the concept that we are connected with our neighbours in our towns and villages, across the country and around the world. It is about thinking not just about ourselves. It actually ties in with overseas aid, because we have social solidarity not just nationally but internationally. However, in the context of a Bill on the national health service, I am afraid that that concerns me. Although, in a social and spiritual sense, the concept of social solidarity is important, do we really want inadvertently to put into the Bill the ability for people who do not have a right to care in this country to get it through social solidarity? Are we saying that our global social solidarity is something that the NHS is going to take care of, or is it a matter that we should deal with in other budgets and through other means? That is why I keep saying that precision is essential to good legislation, and that nice words that are not precise are extremely unfortunate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/03-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.11
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It is a terrible lacuna in my own proceedings that I have failed to put down detailed explanations of what I am trying to do or what I have failed to do. I ask the Committee’s forgiveness and forbearance, but I had hoped that the clarity of language that I was inserting into the Bill would almost be self-evident. I hoped that, given the wisdom assembled in this room—as I look around it I see some of the wisest people, not only in this Parliament but in all Parliaments—Committee members would immediately have gathered the sense of what I meant. As I explained it in Committee, they would find that it all became clear. If they had any doubts or wanted me to make any further explanations, they would be able to intervene. Although I recognise that I have not on this occasion followed the good, helpful suggestion of the Procedure Committee, I think that my sin of omission—as it clearly is—does not necessarily require a confessional. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.7
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point, and I am fascinated by the fact that his wife is a judge. This really does come to the heart of the matter that we, in this Committee, are looking at in microcosm. Who should make our laws? Should it be my right hon. Friend or should it be his learned wife? It is my view that he should make the laws and his learned wife should then interpret them. I hope that that is how the Arbuthnot family operates. That seems to me to be a very good model for family life, because it ensures that one’s wife has the ultimate authority. I think that is probably true for most of the gentlemen in this House, if not necessarily for the ladies, obviously.On my right hon. Friend’s point about removing the word “social”, we would then just have “solidarity”. It would be based on solidarity. This was, of course, the name of the trade union in Poland, I seem to remember. It was one of the very few trade unions of which I have been an admirer, because it was in favour of freedom rather than obstructionism. If one just said “a health service based on solidarity”, what it meant would be very unclear—just as unclear as “social solidarity”. What is solidarity? What are we trying to get at in saying that? Surely it is obvious that if a health service is  free at the point of use—which the Conservatives are deeply committed to and have been for a very long time—surely it will treat everybody fairly. That is the whole point of it: everybody has an equal right to use it.My amendment would replace “social solidarity” where it occurs throughout the Bill with the term “medical necessity”, because I like precision and facts. No doubt the Committee will remember the great Ronald Reagan giving a speech at the Republican convention in which he said, “Facts are stubborn things”. Facts are stubborn things, and they are justiciable and understandable and interpretable, whereas spin is not. I take my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that the term “social solidarity” should be changed to merely “solidarity”, but I reject it because it does not actually tell us anything. It sounds very nice; it sounds good and kind and cuddly, but to use a time-honoured phrase, it butters no parsnips. I am very keen that when we legislate, as far as possible parsnips should be buttered, rather than simply having fine words.Looking again at social solidarity and how we are trying to get there and how unsuited it is to legislation, in October of this great year of anniversaries we have the 600th anniversary of our great victory at Agincourt. There we see social solidarity in those words of Henry V about those who were not there, who were “a-bed”, who “shall think themselves accursed” not to have been at Agincourt on St Crispin’s day. That is social solidarity. That is something created by people following a common enterprise. That is a band of brothers coalescing to ensure that what they are trying to do is in the interests of the nation and pushing forward to ensure that the best interests of the people are served.However, after Agincourt—or probably before from Crécy onwards—legislation was on the statute book saying that there must be archery practice at very regular occasions subject to penalties, in order to create the social solidarity that the hon. Member for Eltham wishes to put in his Bill. It consistently failed to work. Without that great feeling of common enterprise, legislation could not enforce that which was not in the hearts of the people. The hearts of the people already support the national health service and therefore to say that it needs to be on the basis of social solidarity seems to me otiose, but also bad law. Think on our friends of Agincourt and their great enterprise. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.9
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and support. I look forward to his speech on this subject, which will be more philosophical than  mine. He gets to the heart of the issue. It is not a concrete concept and cannot be enforced on people by law, but comes about through the nature of things. I mentioned Agincourt, one of our great anniversaries. We also have the anniversary of Waterloo on 18 June. There is a French historian who is trying to maintain that Napoleon won. For the record, he did not. Wellington did, with the help of Blücher, who came a bit late but better later than never. That, once again, created social solidarity. The Iron Duke, Wellington, said all those rude things about his own troops—how they might not frighten the enemy,“but, by God, they frighten me”—yet when he was there ahead of them, leading, he inspired them with a sense of social solidarity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.11
I am inordinately privileged to have had the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I look at it another way. It has been in our nature as a nation to have allies, but Napoleon is the precursor of the European Union in trying to enforce order without democratic support. Napoleon is the model for the EU, where we, with Blücher and so on, are the model for a Europe of nation states.I fear, Mr Chairman, that in your hawklike attention to detail, if I stray too much on to this subject, I may be threatened with the horrors of Standing Order No. 42 as implemented in Committee by Standing Orders— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.13
I remain privileged and grateful for the wisdom of the Chairman. I want to come back to matters at hand, such as that spirit of social solidarity that there was at Waterloo and the commonality that they felt in their hearts that inspired them to do more. To be fair, that was true of the enemy as well. As an aside, it is worth remembering that in Crimea, Lord Raglan kept referring to the enemy as the French when by that stage they were our allies. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.15
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It is a terrible lacuna in my own proceedings that I have failed to put down detailed explanations of what I am trying to do or what I have failed to do. I ask the Committee’s forgiveness and forbearance, but I had hoped that the clarity of language that I was inserting into the Bill would almost be self-evident. I hoped that, given the wisdom assembled in this room—as I look around it I see some of the wisest people, not only in this Parliament but in all Parliaments—Committee members would immediately have gathered the sense of what I meant. As I explained it in Committee, they would find that it all became clear. If they had any doubts or wanted me to make any further explanations, they would be able to intervene. Although I recognise that I have not on this occasion followed the good, helpful suggestion of the Procedure Committee, I think that my sin of omission—as it clearly is—does not necessarily require a confessional. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.7
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point, and I am fascinated by the fact that his wife is a judge. This really does come to the heart of the matter that we, in this Committee, are looking at in microcosm. Who should make our laws? Should it be my right hon. Friend or should it be his learned wife? It is my view that he should make the laws and his learned wife should then interpret them. I hope that that is how the Arbuthnot family operates. That seems to me to be a very good model for family life, because it ensures that one’s wife has the ultimate authority. I think that is probably true for most of the gentlemen in this House, if not necessarily for the ladies, obviously.On my right hon. Friend’s point about removing the word “social”, we would then just have “solidarity”. It would be based on solidarity. This was, of course, the name of the trade union in Poland, I seem to remember. It was one of the very few trade unions of which I have been an admirer, because it was in favour of freedom rather than obstructionism. If one just said “a health service based on solidarity”, what it meant would be very unclear—just as unclear as “social solidarity”. What is solidarity? What are we trying to get at in saying that? Surely it is obvious that if a health service is  free at the point of use—which the Conservatives are deeply committed to and have been for a very long time—surely it will treat everybody fairly. That is the whole point of it: everybody has an equal right to use it.My amendment would replace “social solidarity” where it occurs throughout the Bill with the term “medical necessity”, because I like precision and facts. No doubt the Committee will remember the great Ronald Reagan giving a speech at the Republican convention in which he said, “Facts are stubborn things”. Facts are stubborn things, and they are justiciable and understandable and interpretable, whereas spin is not. I take my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that the term “social solidarity” should be changed to merely “solidarity”, but I reject it because it does not actually tell us anything. It sounds very nice; it sounds good and kind and cuddly, but to use a time-honoured phrase, it butters no parsnips. I am very keen that when we legislate, as far as possible parsnips should be buttered, rather than simply having fine words.Looking again at social solidarity and how we are trying to get there and how unsuited it is to legislation, in October of this great year of anniversaries we have the 600th anniversary of our great victory at Agincourt. There we see social solidarity in those words of Henry V about those who were not there, who were “a-bed”, who “shall think themselves accursed” not to have been at Agincourt on St Crispin’s day. That is social solidarity. That is something created by people following a common enterprise. That is a band of brothers coalescing to ensure that what they are trying to do is in the interests of the nation and pushing forward to ensure that the best interests of the people are served.However, after Agincourt—or probably before from Crécy onwards—legislation was on the statute book saying that there must be archery practice at very regular occasions subject to penalties, in order to create the social solidarity that the hon. Member for Eltham wishes to put in his Bill. It consistently failed to work. Without that great feeling of common enterprise, legislation could not enforce that which was not in the hearts of the people. The hearts of the people already support the national health service and therefore to say that it needs to be on the basis of social solidarity seems to me otiose, but also bad law. Think on our friends of Agincourt and their great enterprise. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.9
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and support. I look forward to his speech on this subject, which will be more philosophical than  mine. He gets to the heart of the issue. It is not a concrete concept and cannot be enforced on people by law, but comes about through the nature of things. I mentioned Agincourt, one of our great anniversaries. We also have the anniversary of Waterloo on 18 June. There is a French historian who is trying to maintain that Napoleon won. For the record, he did not. Wellington did, with the help of Blücher, who came a bit late but better later than never. That, once again, created social solidarity. The Iron Duke, Wellington, said all those rude things about his own troops—how they might not frighten the enemy,“but, by God, they frighten me”—yet when he was there ahead of them, leading, he inspired them with a sense of social solidarity. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.11
I am inordinately privileged to have had the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I look at it another way. It has been in our nature as a nation to have allies, but Napoleon is the precursor of the European Union in trying to enforce order without democratic support. Napoleon is the model for the EU, where we, with Blücher and so on, are the model for a Europe of nation states.I fear, Mr Chairman, that in your hawklike attention to detail, if I stray too much on to this subject, I may be threatened with the horrors of Standing Order No. 42 as implemented in Committee by Standing Orders— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.13
I remain privileged and grateful for the wisdom of the Chairman. I want to come back to matters at hand, such as that spirit of social solidarity that there was at Waterloo and the commonality that they felt in their hearts that inspired them to do more. To be fair, that was true of the enemy as well. As an aside, it is worth remembering that in Crimea, Lord Raglan kept referring to the enemy as the French when by that stage they were our allies. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.15
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.1
Thank you for your wise selection of amendments, Mr Bone; it includes a fair number of mine, which I have tabled to help the Bill along its way—how nice it is that we are now doing so.I have quoted before what Disraeli said in his speech at the Manchester free trade hall in 1872:“sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas…the first consideration of a minister should be the health of the people.”As always, it is good to see the Conservatives putting their principles into action by giving due consideration to Bills relating to health. Amending them can ensure that they have achieved their main objective, because health has been a Conservative subject since 1872—before the foundation of the Labour Party—so we have a very good record on this issue.The amendments that I have proposed encompass a number of different points. First, I thought it behoved us—it was our duty—to remove what one might call politically correct gobbledegook—the sort of phraseology that is so popular in the Left that they look to put fine-sounding baubles into Bills, as if they were a Christmas tree, and make them sound as if they were about motherhood and apple pie and those sorts of things, with which one could not disagree but which have very little legislative effect. How would one legislate that everyone should like apple pie, perhaps with or without custard? That is why I come to the removal of social solidarity.It is of course a good thing that society should be united and that we are all in it together, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so wisely put it on many occasions. How true that is: we are all in it together. But how possible is it to legislate for this togetherness, this sense of community? A sense of community builds up through the ages: it is a commonality of feeling that comes from a shared history and experience, a shared society.There was a wonderful exhibition in this House last Thursday in which the four surviving original copies of Magna Carta were brought together. That is what brings us our social solidarity, our feeling that as the people of the United Kingdom came together, we had a sense of being one people and because of that took on great enterprises. We established our freedoms and spread them around the world. Because of this sense of social solidarity we built a great empire and fought world wars; we defeated Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It is indisputably important and held dear. But in a sense the theory of it is not an issue that you can pass into legislation: you cannot say that the hon. Member for Eltham and I must share social solidarity. I happen to think that he is a very good egg; that is my private opinion. However, we have many differences of opinion and approach and represent very different communities, so although we have a social solidarity in the broadest sense as Members of Parliament and as Britons, do we have a social solidarity that can be legislated for—can an ardent socialist and a die-hard Tory have social solidarity by rule of law? I do not think so; it is something that evolves and develops.I appreciate that I may be at risk of reducing our social solidarity the more I make amendments to the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and I regret doing so, but that is part of legislative scrutiny. I am generally against putting things into Bills that are not actually legislative. What if this Bill comes before the courts? What is a judge—learned in the law, bewigged, berobed, sitting on a fine plinth looking down on his courtroom—supposed to say? An action is brought before him to say that there is not sufficient social solidarity. How is this learned judge able to interpret that and give it action? Can he send a police officer out to arrest somebody for not being  socially solid? What do we mean by being socially solid—is this about people suffering from obesity, which is a problem that affects the health service, or is it merely something intellectual, theoretical, ethereal and difficult to pin down and make actionable? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.3
That is a very good point. It is often useful to set out in a Bill what is meant by the terminology used. In Bills of old, when Parliament first met—it is wonderful to go to the Victoria Tower and see some of those historic rolls of the Bills that Parliament passed—there was a magnificent clarity of language. Our legislators spoke firmly as to what they meant. They did not haver around the issue or use words in the Humpty-Dumpty sense with which we have become familiar in modern politics. The whole concept of spin was alien to our forefathers in Parliament.When thinking of pithy Bills of the past, I think of the Act against appeals, which was only, sadly, repealed in the late 1960s. It prevented anyone from this country from going to a foreign court outside these shores, the penalty for doing so being treason. It is a great pity that that Act did not remain on the statute book because it would solve a lot of our European problems today if it were still there. That legislation was clear, well-written and obvious in its intent. I am sorry to say that it was deadly in its effect because it hit some of my co-religionists; but, leaving that aside, the language used was precise.We live in an age of woolly language and spin. To avoid that in legislation, it is wise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North so sensibly says, to have notes at the end to say, “This is what we mean,” so that people can understand the terminology and what it means in legislation. Wishy-washy, vague and nice-sounding terms are difficult to enforce in law.As the legislation goes through the courts—the lower courts, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court—people will look at the phraseology and look at “social solidarity” without the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who would have set out with clarity, had it been his Bill, what the term meant. Instead, the decision has to be made by a judge. That upsets the fundamental principles of democracy that we hold so dear, because instead of having law made by our legislators, our law is developed and evolved by our judges. I thought that this country had the most glorious constitution, and in that sense, perhaps, I am too much of a Whig; but then some Whigs saw the light and became Tories in the end.There is a feeling that our constitution is a beautiful, pure thing that works but that it has been distorted in recent years. The balance that existed between Commons, Lords and judges has got out of kilter. Judges have been taking increasing power from the legislature because we pass laws that use language vaguely and imprecisely. Therefore, judges have to step in. It is not that judges are sitting in their Inns of Court eating fine dinners, and saying, as they skewer a morsel of lamb, “How do we skewer the legislature too?” but that we ask them to consider that which ought not to be within their bailiwick.  We ask them, by passing imprecise laws, to evolve the law because we do not have the clear statements of meaning that are necessary for precise law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.1
Thank you for your wise selection of amendments, Mr Bone; it includes a fair number of mine, which I have tabled to help the Bill along its way—how nice it is that we are now doing so.I have quoted before what Disraeli said in his speech at the Manchester free trade hall in 1872:“sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas…the first consideration of a minister should be the health of the people.”As always, it is good to see the Conservatives putting their principles into action by giving due consideration to Bills relating to health. Amending them can ensure that they have achieved their main objective, because health has been a Conservative subject since 1872—before the foundation of the Labour Party—so we have a very good record on this issue.The amendments that I have proposed encompass a number of different points. First, I thought it behoved us—it was our duty—to remove what one might call politically correct gobbledegook—the sort of phraseology that is so popular in the Left that they look to put fine-sounding baubles into Bills, as if they were a Christmas tree, and make them sound as if they were about motherhood and apple pie and those sorts of things, with which one could not disagree but which have very little legislative effect. How would one legislate that everyone should like apple pie, perhaps with or without custard? That is why I come to the removal of social solidarity.It is of course a good thing that society should be united and that we are all in it together, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so wisely put it on many occasions. How true that is: we are all in it together. But how possible is it to legislate for this togetherness, this sense of community? A sense of community builds up through the ages: it is a commonality of feeling that comes from a shared history and experience, a shared society.There was a wonderful exhibition in this House last Thursday in which the four surviving original copies of Magna Carta were brought together. That is what brings us our social solidarity, our feeling that as the people of the United Kingdom came together, we had a sense of being one people and because of that took on great enterprises. We established our freedoms and spread them around the world. Because of this sense of social solidarity we built a great empire and fought world wars; we defeated Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It is indisputably important and held dear. But in a sense the theory of it is not an issue that you can pass into legislation: you cannot say that the hon. Member for Eltham and I must share social solidarity. I happen to think that he is a very good egg; that is my private opinion. However, we have many differences of opinion and approach and represent very different communities, so although we have a social solidarity in the broadest sense as Members of Parliament and as Britons, do we have a social solidarity that can be legislated for—can an ardent socialist and a die-hard Tory have social solidarity by rule of law? I do not think so; it is something that evolves and develops.I appreciate that I may be at risk of reducing our social solidarity the more I make amendments to the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and I regret doing so, but that is part of legislative scrutiny. I am generally against putting things into Bills that are not actually legislative. What if this Bill comes before the courts? What is a judge—learned in the law, bewigged, berobed, sitting on a fine plinth looking down on his courtroom—supposed to say? An action is brought before him to say that there is not sufficient social solidarity. How is this learned judge able to interpret that and give it action? Can he send a police officer out to arrest somebody for not being  socially solid? What do we mean by being socially solid—is this about people suffering from obesity, which is a problem that affects the health service, or is it merely something intellectual, theoretical, ethereal and difficult to pin down and make actionable? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.3
That is a very good point. It is often useful to set out in a Bill what is meant by the terminology used. In Bills of old, when Parliament first met—it is wonderful to go to the Victoria Tower and see some of those historic rolls of the Bills that Parliament passed—there was a magnificent clarity of language. Our legislators spoke firmly as to what they meant. They did not haver around the issue or use words in the Humpty-Dumpty sense with which we have become familiar in modern politics. The whole concept of spin was alien to our forefathers in Parliament.When thinking of pithy Bills of the past, I think of the Act against appeals, which was only, sadly, repealed in the late 1960s. It prevented anyone from this country from going to a foreign court outside these shores, the penalty for doing so being treason. It is a great pity that that Act did not remain on the statute book because it would solve a lot of our European problems today if it were still there. That legislation was clear, well-written and obvious in its intent. I am sorry to say that it was deadly in its effect because it hit some of my co-religionists; but, leaving that aside, the language used was precise.We live in an age of woolly language and spin. To avoid that in legislation, it is wise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North so sensibly says, to have notes at the end to say, “This is what we mean,” so that people can understand the terminology and what it means in legislation. Wishy-washy, vague and nice-sounding terms are difficult to enforce in law.As the legislation goes through the courts—the lower courts, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court—people will look at the phraseology and look at “social solidarity” without the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who would have set out with clarity, had it been his Bill, what the term meant. Instead, the decision has to be made by a judge. That upsets the fundamental principles of democracy that we hold so dear, because instead of having law made by our legislators, our law is developed and evolved by our judges. I thought that this country had the most glorious constitution, and in that sense, perhaps, I am too much of a Whig; but then some Whigs saw the light and became Tories in the end.There is a feeling that our constitution is a beautiful, pure thing that works but that it has been distorted in recent years. The balance that existed between Commons, Lords and judges has got out of kilter. Judges have been taking increasing power from the legislature because we pass laws that use language vaguely and imprecisely. Therefore, judges have to step in. It is not that judges are sitting in their Inns of Court eating fine dinners, and saying, as they skewer a morsel of lamb, “How do we skewer the legislature too?” but that we ask them to consider that which ought not to be within their bailiwick.  We ask them, by passing imprecise laws, to evolve the law because we do not have the clear statements of meaning that are necessary for precise law. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.2.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g2.5
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I am trying to clarify exactly what the amendments are saying. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.90
On a point of order, Mr Bone. The sittings motion says:“2.00pm when the House is sitting.”Does that mean when the main Chamber is actually in session, or does it mean on days when the House has been sitting? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.102
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I wonder if yesterday’s answer to my question given by the Secretary of State for Health has been brought to your attention. It sets out some of the costs associated with the Bill. Would it be possible to review that in light of the absence of a money resolution, as specific costs  have now been identified for a number of parts of the Bill? Under the normal proceedings of the House, it will not be possible to put those clauses to the Committee. Is the Chairman at this stage in a position to rule on that or looking into it with the advice of the Clerks, because it does not affect clause 1? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.123
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I am trying to clarify exactly what the amendments are saying. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.90
On a point of order, Mr Bone. The sittings motion says:“2.00pm when the House is sitting.”Does that mean when the main Chamber is actually in session, or does it mean on days when the House has been sitting? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.102
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I wonder if yesterday’s answer to my question given by the Secretary of State for Health has been brought to your attention. It sets out some of the costs associated with the Bill. Would it be possible to review that in light of the absence of a money resolution, as specific costs  have now been identified for a number of parts of the Bill? Under the normal proceedings of the House, it will not be possible to put those clauses to the Committee. Is the Chairman at this stage in a position to rule on that or looking into it with the advice of the Clerks, because it does not affect clause 1? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.123
I am but a poor Whips’ lackey. I think that programme motions are a great disappointment, but that is how business is now dealt with. That came in before I was elected to Parliament. Therefore, I thought that to make a stand against it would not be so much “Horatius at the Bridge” as “The boy stood on the burning deck”. Members will recall that,“all but he had fled”.It was a sad end for the boy on the burning deck; he died. I did not want to put myself in that position. I thought that the boy who stood on the burning deck was noble and heroic, yet ultimately it was a sad heroism that did not work. I thought that, were I to do that as I came into the House and as programme motions had become almost an accepted part of our procedure, I would look—horror of horrors—pedantic. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.53
Thank you, Mr Bone. You are quite right that the subject is of great importance. I was referring to my apparent inconsistency in being broadly cautious about change but favouring programme motions. That, of course, is part of how time is allocated. If we sit at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday, rather than 4.30, have we not made time too elastic because, as I said, we could go on all through the night? From 4.30 to 9.30 would be a reasonable and suitable amount of time, in spite of and irrespective of the inconvenience caused to Members because they would not be able to attend their Committees—a point that I made earlier, but that is worth reiterating. That extra two and a half hours really would make all the difference. It would turn us from sprinters into marathon runners, and surely that is not what we want. We need the right amount of time; not too little and not too much. One recalls Goldilocks and her porridge. She did not want it to be too hot or too cold; she wanted it to be just right. I want the time that we allocate to this debate to be just right. We are getting there.It has been so helpful spending a little time considering the various options so that we can work through what we ought to be doing and how we should be considering it. We have listened to a variety of arguments. On my own motion on Thursdays—why do I choose Thursdays and why have I put forward this amendment? The nub of the matter is that there is the least contentious parliamentary business on that day.I have a genuine difference of opinion with some other right hon. and hon. Members inasmuch as I think that on days when this House is sitting, it is the duty of Members to be here. That is not to underestimate the importance of constituency work. The House sits for around 35 weeks a year, which leaves 17 weeks in which we can devote ourselves to activities in our constituencies, not to mention 52 weekends—there is a slight double counting in that, but there are 35 weekends when the House is sitting and the Fridays when the House is not sitting. That provides an enormous amount of time to attend to constituency business when the House is not in session. When the House is in session, who would want to be absent? What a strange thing; it is a great honour to be Members of what is, undoubtedly, the greatest Parliament in the world, and surely we want to be here.One has heard rumours of socialist MPs being sent off to Scotland to campaign on Thursdays when the House is sitting. I was shocked to hear that. Indeed, I think it might conceivably even be a breach of privilege to tell—[Interruption.] Good heavens, I hear, from a sedentary position, that they are even sent there on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays as well. That is shocking. It is a breach of privilege to tell people that they should be away from the House when we are sent here and have a writ that is issued to bring us here.Indeed, there is a great deal in “Erskine May” about how, in the old days, it was insisted upon that Members had to be present: they had to get leaves of absence. That is a good system. There is too much wandering away from Parliament; we should bring people back on Thursdays to attend the legislative business that we are here for. That is why I have tabled my amendment. We are a legislature, not a grandiloquent talking shop, although some Members may believe otherwise. We are here to scrutinise legislation and decide whether to pass it or not. That requires attendance in this House. This trend for Thursdays to become a second-tier day—a voluntary day, which does not necessarily require people’s presence—worries me. I tend to be here almost without fail on Thursdays. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.55
I have voted since elected on 95%—or fractionally under, by less than a percentage point—of Divisions. I was away on the day in question because I had to attend a funeral, which I am sorry to say was out of the country. I hope that that was a good enough reason, and that the hon. Gentleman will not criticise me for it. I am always reluctant to miss the House when it is sitting, and do so extremely rarely. It was a funeral of a colleague of mine, which is enough detail for the time being.I reiterate that one’s job is to be here, and that absences need to be for good reason. The modern trend of thinking of Thursday as a day for campaigning is wrong and should be rebuffed. One of the ways of reversing it is to ensure that people are called here for Committee, because there is a great pressure and incentive to be here. The turnout on this Committee is splendid; it is encouraging that there is so much enthusiasm for attending legislative Committees. I am particularly impressed by the turnout on the Opposition Benches. We had a European Scrutiny Committee yesterday at which only two or three Opposition Members were present, so attendance is declining. Yet here, on a proper legislative issue, we see a very good turnout: that is to be encouraged. If it were on a Thursday we would begin to re-establish that right-standing position of the House as the centre of the nation’s political life which, when it is sitting, Members have an urge to attend because they feel that anything else is a distraction. We come back to Job and his ruminations on time when misfortune had befallen him— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.57
My hon. Friend’s intervention is almost perfectly timed, because as I have been talking, I have been thinking. That is one of the great things about multi-tasking: can people in this House talk and think at the same time? At times it might seem that that is not so. Some people seem to talk without any thinking before, during or afterwards; but on this happy occasion I have been both talking and thinking and giving due consideration to the many balancing factors there are and the hard decision that must be made. I have found that ultimately I must turn my face against Wednesdays and I do so with sorrow, because of the risk that it might be seen as a change, a modernisation, a move towards socialism. It is not: I do it because I feel that the manuscript amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 may not get the approval of the Chairman or the support of the Committee. Therefore, to go with that would be taking a risk or a gamble. It would be like betting on the horses and I have never been a gambler. I am one of those boring Johnnies who prefers safety first, along with Stanley Baldwin. That was a very good election slogan, which I am thinking of using in the next few months.The risk is that we should be caught up at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday when the European Scrutiny Committee has its work to attend to. We have a great avalanche of legislation coming from our friends in Brussels with just us—the St Bernards of the legislative system, with our little bottles of brandy round our necks—to try and rescue British sovereignty from the perils of Brussels. I would miss that if we were to meet at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday. Had the hon. Member for Eltham tabled  a motion for half past 4, I should have been like a lamb in springtime in my support of it. I should have been gambolling around the room in joy if he had tabled that, but alas he did not. He did not take us down that happy route. Therefore, the risk that I would take is too great. It would not well serve my constituents, who I know are concerned about what is going on in Europe, want to ensure that it is kept in order, is kept down, and that we are able to scrutinise it properly and send reports to Ministers for proper debate and scrutiny. That 2 o’clock time is therefore precious and that moves me against Wednesday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.59
My right hon. Friend’s powers of persuasion are so remarkable that in those few words, those fine words plucked from the dictionary, words that Dr Johnson himself must have described when he put together that great dictionary of us, a work that took him 10 years—and I believe that 100 Frenchman could not do in 150 years, for a dictionary of their own language—those few words have persuaded me. After due consideration and thought on his impassioned oratory, I have decided not to press my amendment, but will support the amendment that we sit at 9.25 am on a Tuesday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.61
I am but a poor Whips’ lackey. I think that programme motions are a great disappointment, but that is how business is now dealt with. That came in before I was elected to Parliament. Therefore, I thought that to make a stand against it would not be so much “Horatius at the Bridge” as “The boy stood on the burning deck”. Members will recall that,“all but he had fled”.It was a sad end for the boy on the burning deck; he died. I did not want to put myself in that position. I thought that the boy who stood on the burning deck was noble and heroic, yet ultimately it was a sad heroism that did not work. I thought that, were I to do that as I came into the House and as programme motions had become almost an accepted part of our procedure, I would look—horror of horrors—pedantic. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.53
Thank you, Mr Bone. You are quite right that the subject is of great importance. I was referring to my apparent inconsistency in being broadly cautious about change but favouring programme motions. That, of course, is part of how time is allocated. If we sit at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday, rather than 4.30, have we not made time too elastic because, as I said, we could go on all through the night? From 4.30 to 9.30 would be a reasonable and suitable amount of time, in spite of and irrespective of the inconvenience caused to Members because they would not be able to attend their Committees—a point that I made earlier, but that is worth reiterating. That extra two and a half hours really would make all the difference. It would turn us from sprinters into marathon runners, and surely that is not what we want. We need the right amount of time; not too little and not too much. One recalls Goldilocks and her porridge. She did not want it to be too hot or too cold; she wanted it to be just right. I want the time that we allocate to this debate to be just right. We are getting there.It has been so helpful spending a little time considering the various options so that we can work through what we ought to be doing and how we should be considering it. We have listened to a variety of arguments. On my own motion on Thursdays—why do I choose Thursdays and why have I put forward this amendment? The nub of the matter is that there is the least contentious parliamentary business on that day.I have a genuine difference of opinion with some other right hon. and hon. Members inasmuch as I think that on days when this House is sitting, it is the duty of Members to be here. That is not to underestimate the importance of constituency work. The House sits for around 35 weeks a year, which leaves 17 weeks in which we can devote ourselves to activities in our constituencies, not to mention 52 weekends—there is a slight double counting in that, but there are 35 weekends when the House is sitting and the Fridays when the House is not sitting. That provides an enormous amount of time to attend to constituency business when the House is not in session. When the House is in session, who would want to be absent? What a strange thing; it is a great honour to be Members of what is, undoubtedly, the greatest Parliament in the world, and surely we want to be here.One has heard rumours of socialist MPs being sent off to Scotland to campaign on Thursdays when the House is sitting. I was shocked to hear that. Indeed, I think it might conceivably even be a breach of privilege to tell—[Interruption.] Good heavens, I hear, from a sedentary position, that they are even sent there on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays as well. That is shocking. It is a breach of privilege to tell people that they should be away from the House when we are sent here and have a writ that is issued to bring us here.Indeed, there is a great deal in “Erskine May” about how, in the old days, it was insisted upon that Members had to be present: they had to get leaves of absence. That is a good system. There is too much wandering away from Parliament; we should bring people back on Thursdays to attend the legislative business that we are here for. That is why I have tabled my amendment. We are a legislature, not a grandiloquent talking shop, although some Members may believe otherwise. We are here to scrutinise legislation and decide whether to pass it or not. That requires attendance in this House. This trend for Thursdays to become a second-tier day—a voluntary day, which does not necessarily require people’s presence—worries me. I tend to be here almost without fail on Thursdays. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.55
I have voted since elected on 95%—or fractionally under, by less than a percentage point—of Divisions. I was away on the day in question because I had to attend a funeral, which I am sorry to say was out of the country. I hope that that was a good enough reason, and that the hon. Gentleman will not criticise me for it. I am always reluctant to miss the House when it is sitting, and do so extremely rarely. It was a funeral of a colleague of mine, which is enough detail for the time being.I reiterate that one’s job is to be here, and that absences need to be for good reason. The modern trend of thinking of Thursday as a day for campaigning is wrong and should be rebuffed. One of the ways of reversing it is to ensure that people are called here for Committee, because there is a great pressure and incentive to be here. The turnout on this Committee is splendid; it is encouraging that there is so much enthusiasm for attending legislative Committees. I am particularly impressed by the turnout on the Opposition Benches. We had a European Scrutiny Committee yesterday at which only two or three Opposition Members were present, so attendance is declining. Yet here, on a proper legislative issue, we see a very good turnout: that is to be encouraged. If it were on a Thursday we would begin to re-establish that right-standing position of the House as the centre of the nation’s political life which, when it is sitting, Members have an urge to attend because they feel that anything else is a distraction. We come back to Job and his ruminations on time when misfortune had befallen him— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.57
My hon. Friend’s intervention is almost perfectly timed, because as I have been talking, I have been thinking. That is one of the great things about multi-tasking: can people in this House talk and think at the same time? At times it might seem that that is not so. Some people seem to talk without any thinking before, during or afterwards; but on this happy occasion I have been both talking and thinking and giving due consideration to the many balancing factors there are and the hard decision that must be made. I have found that ultimately I must turn my face against Wednesdays and I do so with sorrow, because of the risk that it might be seen as a change, a modernisation, a move towards socialism. It is not: I do it because I feel that the manuscript amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 may not get the approval of the Chairman or the support of the Committee. Therefore, to go with that would be taking a risk or a gamble. It would be like betting on the horses and I have never been a gambler. I am one of those boring Johnnies who prefers safety first, along with Stanley Baldwin. That was a very good election slogan, which I am thinking of using in the next few months.The risk is that we should be caught up at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday when the European Scrutiny Committee has its work to attend to. We have a great avalanche of legislation coming from our friends in Brussels with just us—the St Bernards of the legislative system, with our little bottles of brandy round our necks—to try and rescue British sovereignty from the perils of Brussels. I would miss that if we were to meet at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday. Had the hon. Member for Eltham tabled  a motion for half past 4, I should have been like a lamb in springtime in my support of it. I should have been gambolling around the room in joy if he had tabled that, but alas he did not. He did not take us down that happy route. Therefore, the risk that I would take is too great. It would not well serve my constituents, who I know are concerned about what is going on in Europe, want to ensure that it is kept in order, is kept down, and that we are able to scrutinise it properly and send reports to Ministers for proper debate and scrutiny. That 2 o’clock time is therefore precious and that moves me against Wednesday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.59
My right hon. Friend’s powers of persuasion are so remarkable that in those few words, those fine words plucked from the dictionary, words that Dr Johnson himself must have described when he put together that great dictionary of us, a work that took him 10 years—and I believe that 100 Frenchman could not do in 150 years, for a dictionary of their own language—those few words have persuaded me. After due consideration and thought on his impassioned oratory, I have decided not to press my amendment, but will support the amendment that we sit at 9.25 am on a Tuesday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.61
My hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend; I apologise for ignoring his membership of the most honourable Privy Council—makes a valid and important point. I would be happy to sit on a Sunday. I am not a Sabbatarian— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.41
No, I am sorry but what else would one prefer to do than be in this Chamber, in this Parliament? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.43
Well, we can go to church before coming to Parliament. We can go to church every day; we just have to be up early with the lark and go to church or to chapel. It is interesting to note that, although we begin our day with prayers in the main Chamber, the Chairman did not start off with a little prayer this morning. That would be a fine tradition at the start and would be helpful to us.I am not a Sabbatarian. I would have been happy with Sundays, or indeed Saturdays or Fridays, but I thought it would be an unduly onerous burden to place on my fellow hon. and right hon. Members, who have constituencies that are more far-flung than mine. For Members for Yorkshire constituencies and constituencies in Cornwall, such as St Ives, the travel times make it hard to interrupt the weekend for parliamentary business; to go back and forth like a ping-pong ball, or like legislation between this House and another place. I therefore ruled out the proposal that we should sit on Friday, Saturday or Sunday for the general convenience of hon. Members, right hon. Members and—not that there are any at the moment—most honourable Members. I focused on Thursday because that is a proper parliamentary day when we should be at our desks—our stalls, so to speak—champing at the bit like racehorses ready for the off, to scrutinise legislation, although racehorses are known for their scrutiny of legislation; I was speaking metaphorically. We may model ourselves on them in our enthusiasm and urgency in attending to the business at hand.Fridays are reserved for sittings of the main Chamber, but sadly it is not well attended. Mr Bone, you are one of the most assiduous attenders on Fridays. Unfortunately, if you were to chair this Committee at the same time that would be a loss to the Chamber and to the progress of debate, as the main Chamber considered other urgent and important private Members’ Bills, legislation on Report, and Lords amendments to Bills that have wended their way through intricacies of the legislative sausage machine, as I believe Bismarck did not say, although that comment is widely attributed to him. That was part of the reason for ruling out Fridays.It is unusual for the House to sit on a Saturday, although it would be interesting to table a motion to discover Members’ views on the subject. The last time we met on a Saturday was in 1982 to consider the urgent matter of the invasion of the Falkland Islands. That day must be held special for the most urgent business of the nation, it feels that something so important and profound has happened, Parliament must be recalled to debate what is to the fore on that day. We can therefore set aside Saturday.If my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives is worried about slow progress and he tabled a motion to suggest an extra Saturday sitting, I would be open to such a proposal, although I might be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. As I have already mentioned, I am not a Sabbatarian, but I accept that some hon. Members are, and I would not like to trespass on their religious feelings. They would be most upset to attend to the business of the House on a Sunday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.45
I am taken aback—I am shocked—by the suggestion that the Committee would not welcome my amendment with open arms. That was the impression I was gaining; that this was the amendment of the day—the amendment du jour, as they might say in France, although I am not sure they use the word, “amendment”. Better French speakers than me might be able to advise.Where would I go next? I am between Scylla and Charybdis, between the pressures of Tuesday and Wednesday. I must weigh it up as though I were a judge sitting in court. We are the high court of Parliament. We must examine the pros, the arguments in favour, and the cons, those against. That which pushes me one way towards a Tuesday then pulls me back towards a Wednesday. I am torn in the manner of those ancient punishments when horses were tied to people’s limbs and they were dragged apart. That is the position that we find ourselves in.What a fine amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North brought forth to the Committee, with such extraordinary brevity. He did so in a way that Gladstone would have thought half-formed, embryonic in the oratory required. Lord Palmerston who spoke on the great issue of Don Pacifico would have thought my hon. Friend had barely scraped the surface of the topic under consideration with an amendment substituting 10 o’clock for 9.25 am, and Tuesday for Wednesday.Wednesday mornings are perhaps convenient for Bill Committees, because the House does not sit then. However, I find Wednesday afternoons particularly difficult, because the European Scrutiny Committee sits at 2 pm, and it covers a great deal of legislative material that changes our laws and feeds through to become the fundamental law of this country under the European Communities Act 1972. It provides a degree of scrutiny that, compared with the scrutiny that we are giving this Bill, is as nothing. However, laws become laws via European regulations or directives, without any fine discussions on how they should be debated, how they should be looked at and how they should be considered. Instead, they wend their way through, with only the ESC standing between us and that awful state of affairs of being governed by Brussels. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.47
My right hon. Friend is a genius; I think we all knew that, given his reputation, not only in this House but in the country. That would certainly be a wise manuscript amendment, because if we were to move to 4.30 pm I would be able to attend not only the ESC but the Procedure Committee.Not everybody finds procedure fascinating, Mr Bone. You will be shocked by that, alert and hawk-like as you are to Standing Orders, sitting there, watching them carefully and ensuring that everything follows the Blue Book, which lays down how we should behave, not to mention that which is set out clearly in “Erskine May”. However, these procedures govern so much of what we do and how we legislate. To miss a Procedure Committee meeting—particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North serves on that Committee too—could allow things to get through and change to happen. Change can be a very dangerous thing unless it is thought through very carefully. If the manuscript amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 pm were considered and approved, how could I complain? We would be able to begin sittings of this Committee at 4.30 pm. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.49
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I recall what a former Liberal Prime Minister said. Lord Palmerston, one of the best Liberal Prime Ministers, if not the only good Liberal Prime Minister that one can call to mind, said:“Change? Change? Aren’t things bad enough already?”There has been so much change that the change from Wednesday to Tuesday, or indeed to Thursday, in the grand scheme of things, is almost a continuity, if you follow the logic of that, Mr Bone. Because our sitting hours have been thrown up in the air and have fallen down where they will, the traditions that we have had have become somewhat abeyant, if that is a word. They have lost the force of continuity that they once had and we find that some things have changed, but others have not altered with them, so that we have an incongruity, which means we need to make further adjustments to keep the sense—the coherence—that used to be present.As they say in the fashion world, some colour is the new black, so I wonder whether Tuesdays are in fact the new Wednesdays, and that if we looked at things in that way the tradition would now be to look at a Tuesday rather than a Wednesday. However, that discussion has slightly distracted me from the joy I was coming on to, which is having a 4.30 pm session on a Wednesday if a manuscript amendment were tabled. Then—what could be finer than this?—we could sit through until about 9.30 the following morning. That would allow time for the proper consideration of the Bill and for speeches to  be made that would not be cut off in their prime, so that we would not lose that energy possessed by speeches that provide a full and rounded view of all the matters that need to be discussed by the Committee.If we began at 4.30 pm on a Wednesday how many hours would that give us? It would give us a whole swathe of time. Even Job would be happy, and no one would be sitting here thinking, “When will it end?” Instead, they would be on the edge of their seats thinking, “Can this go on a bit more? Can we hear more arguments in the time that has been allotted to us?” However, if we were to sit at 2 o’clock instead of 4.30, not only would it make it very difficult for hon. and right hon. Members to be here because of their other Committee duties— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.51
My hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend; I apologise for ignoring his membership of the most honourable Privy Council—makes a valid and important point. I would be happy to sit on a Sunday. I am not a Sabbatarian— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.41
No, I am sorry but what else would one prefer to do than be in this Chamber, in this Parliament? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.43
Well, we can go to church before coming to Parliament. We can go to church every day; we just have to be up early with the lark and go to church or to chapel. It is interesting to note that, although we begin our day with prayers in the main Chamber, the Chairman did not start off with a little prayer this morning. That would be a fine tradition at the start and would be helpful to us.I am not a Sabbatarian. I would have been happy with Sundays, or indeed Saturdays or Fridays, but I thought it would be an unduly onerous burden to place on my fellow hon. and right hon. Members, who have constituencies that are more far-flung than mine. For Members for Yorkshire constituencies and constituencies in Cornwall, such as St Ives, the travel times make it hard to interrupt the weekend for parliamentary business; to go back and forth like a ping-pong ball, or like legislation between this House and another place. I therefore ruled out the proposal that we should sit on Friday, Saturday or Sunday for the general convenience of hon. Members, right hon. Members and—not that there are any at the moment—most honourable Members. I focused on Thursday because that is a proper parliamentary day when we should be at our desks—our stalls, so to speak—champing at the bit like racehorses ready for the off, to scrutinise legislation, although racehorses are known for their scrutiny of legislation; I was speaking metaphorically. We may model ourselves on them in our enthusiasm and urgency in attending to the business at hand.Fridays are reserved for sittings of the main Chamber, but sadly it is not well attended. Mr Bone, you are one of the most assiduous attenders on Fridays. Unfortunately, if you were to chair this Committee at the same time that would be a loss to the Chamber and to the progress of debate, as the main Chamber considered other urgent and important private Members’ Bills, legislation on Report, and Lords amendments to Bills that have wended their way through intricacies of the legislative sausage machine, as I believe Bismarck did not say, although that comment is widely attributed to him. That was part of the reason for ruling out Fridays.It is unusual for the House to sit on a Saturday, although it would be interesting to table a motion to discover Members’ views on the subject. The last time we met on a Saturday was in 1982 to consider the urgent matter of the invasion of the Falkland Islands. That day must be held special for the most urgent business of the nation, it feels that something so important and profound has happened, Parliament must be recalled to debate what is to the fore on that day. We can therefore set aside Saturday.If my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives is worried about slow progress and he tabled a motion to suggest an extra Saturday sitting, I would be open to such a proposal, although I might be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. As I have already mentioned, I am not a Sabbatarian, but I accept that some hon. Members are, and I would not like to trespass on their religious feelings. They would be most upset to attend to the business of the House on a Sunday. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.45
I am taken aback—I am shocked—by the suggestion that the Committee would not welcome my amendment with open arms. That was the impression I was gaining; that this was the amendment of the day—the amendment du jour, as they might say in France, although I am not sure they use the word, “amendment”. Better French speakers than me might be able to advise.Where would I go next? I am between Scylla and Charybdis, between the pressures of Tuesday and Wednesday. I must weigh it up as though I were a judge sitting in court. We are the high court of Parliament. We must examine the pros, the arguments in favour, and the cons, those against. That which pushes me one way towards a Tuesday then pulls me back towards a Wednesday. I am torn in the manner of those ancient punishments when horses were tied to people’s limbs and they were dragged apart. That is the position that we find ourselves in.What a fine amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North brought forth to the Committee, with such extraordinary brevity. He did so in a way that Gladstone would have thought half-formed, embryonic in the oratory required. Lord Palmerston who spoke on the great issue of Don Pacifico would have thought my hon. Friend had barely scraped the surface of the topic under consideration with an amendment substituting 10 o’clock for 9.25 am, and Tuesday for Wednesday.Wednesday mornings are perhaps convenient for Bill Committees, because the House does not sit then. However, I find Wednesday afternoons particularly difficult, because the European Scrutiny Committee sits at 2 pm, and it covers a great deal of legislative material that changes our laws and feeds through to become the fundamental law of this country under the European Communities Act 1972. It provides a degree of scrutiny that, compared with the scrutiny that we are giving this Bill, is as nothing. However, laws become laws via European regulations or directives, without any fine discussions on how they should be debated, how they should be looked at and how they should be considered. Instead, they wend their way through, with only the ESC standing between us and that awful state of affairs of being governed by Brussels. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.47
My right hon. Friend is a genius; I think we all knew that, given his reputation, not only in this House but in the country. That would certainly be a wise manuscript amendment, because if we were to move to 4.30 pm I would be able to attend not only the ESC but the Procedure Committee.Not everybody finds procedure fascinating, Mr Bone. You will be shocked by that, alert and hawk-like as you are to Standing Orders, sitting there, watching them carefully and ensuring that everything follows the Blue Book, which lays down how we should behave, not to mention that which is set out clearly in “Erskine May”. However, these procedures govern so much of what we do and how we legislate. To miss a Procedure Committee meeting—particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North serves on that Committee too—could allow things to get through and change to happen. Change can be a very dangerous thing unless it is thought through very carefully. If the manuscript amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 pm were considered and approved, how could I complain? We would be able to begin sittings of this Committee at 4.30 pm. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.49
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I recall what a former Liberal Prime Minister said. Lord Palmerston, one of the best Liberal Prime Ministers, if not the only good Liberal Prime Minister that one can call to mind, said:“Change? Change? Aren’t things bad enough already?”There has been so much change that the change from Wednesday to Tuesday, or indeed to Thursday, in the grand scheme of things, is almost a continuity, if you follow the logic of that, Mr Bone. Because our sitting hours have been thrown up in the air and have fallen down where they will, the traditions that we have had have become somewhat abeyant, if that is a word. They have lost the force of continuity that they once had and we find that some things have changed, but others have not altered with them, so that we have an incongruity, which means we need to make further adjustments to keep the sense—the coherence—that used to be present.As they say in the fashion world, some colour is the new black, so I wonder whether Tuesdays are in fact the new Wednesdays, and that if we looked at things in that way the tradition would now be to look at a Tuesday rather than a Wednesday. However, that discussion has slightly distracted me from the joy I was coming on to, which is having a 4.30 pm session on a Wednesday if a manuscript amendment were tabled. Then—what could be finer than this?—we could sit through until about 9.30 the following morning. That would allow time for the proper consideration of the Bill and for speeches to  be made that would not be cut off in their prime, so that we would not lose that energy possessed by speeches that provide a full and rounded view of all the matters that need to be discussed by the Committee.If we began at 4.30 pm on a Wednesday how many hours would that give us? It would give us a whole swathe of time. Even Job would be happy, and no one would be sitting here thinking, “When will it end?” Instead, they would be on the edge of their seats thinking, “Can this go on a bit more? Can we hear more arguments in the time that has been allotted to us?” However, if we were to sit at 2 o’clock instead of 4.30, not only would it make it very difficult for hon. and right hon. Members to be here because of their other Committee duties— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.51
May I reiterate the great pleasure it brings me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to consider the issue of time?We are with Job who—you will recall from the Old Testament, Mr Bone—ruminates on the question of time:“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of an hireling?”We look back over many centuries to see how time should be allocated. Job complains that when he is sleeping or waking he wonders whether the night will ever end; and when he is awake he wonders whether the day will ever end, so that he may go back to sleep.I can see that members of the Committee may feel exactly the same as they discuss the intricacies of this important Bill and look at the fundamental question of time and how it should be allocated. How should time be divided between the many duties that Members have in their constituencies, in the Chamber, and in Committee to ensure that they are completed in a way that is becoming to a Member of Parliament, is satisfactory to the electorate and is supported by their party Whips? All of those duties have a role, although I would say that our electorate are the most important and the people to whom we should look for guidance, instruction and thoughtfulness as to where we should spread ourselves.I notice, talking of spreading ourselves, that we can now spread lots of butter on our bread once again, because it turns out to be wonderfully healthy, which is a nice note in a health service Bill. I hope we can come back to that later. We have to spread ourselves in various ways.The question today is do we spread ourselves at 9.25 am on a Tuesday, 10 o’clock on a Tuesday, 9.25 am on a Wednesday and at 2 pm. Or, should we consider, re-evaluate, be brave, bold and modernising and look to Thursday? Thursday is the great day named in honour of a Norse god, Thor, who is the god of thunder and  lightening, but also of oak trees. He is a god we can claim for our own in England as the symbol of our nation and, as it happens, of the Conservative party. A rather wishy-washy oak tree is used for the Conservative party, but none the less, that symbol is associated with a Norse divinity, although not one I believe in. That does not mean that the stories about him are not interesting or relevant to the question of whether 11.30 am and 12 o’clock on Thursdays might be not only the best time but the ideal time, the perfect time—that ethereal concept which many of us have been seeking throughout our lives—where time is used to its greatest efficiency.We often think of Rudyard Kipling and his “unforgiving minute”. Will those unforgiving minutes on a Thursday be more forgiving on a Tuesday or a Wednesday? I think they would; there is more latitude on a Thursday for a thorough examination of a Bill, and we can consider it in the round. I have looked at debates that are coming up. On Thursday we will miss important debates—there is a debate this coming Thursday on public houses and, representing a rural constituency where cider is particularly popular, that is something that I would wish to be involved in, but there not be a substantive vote at the end of that debate. It will come to a conclusion with a motion to take note, so my absence will not unduly discombobulate my constituents. They will feel that it is reasonable that I should attend to the health of the nation on a Thursday rather than consider public houses.This Thursday, there is also an important debate—undoubtedly, unquestioningly, indubitably—on the destruction of antiquities in Syria and Iraq—a very serious problem and one that many of us would be interested in, but I fear that the powers of the House in this respect are limited. The days of empire, when Mesopotamia was a British protectorate of which we had charge, are gone. That has all changed. What this House decides on Syria and Iraq in relation to antiquities, although an important subject and an interesting debate, is something that we would miss if we were present in this Committee Room, or in the Committee Room that we were in last week. I am sorry, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, that we have been downgraded. I think of Committee Room 14 as the crème de la crème of Committee rooms: a fine, large room where members of the public can come in their hordes to watch our deliberations and where there is a special pen, a much bigger pen, for the press. This Thursday, if we are in a Committee Room, it would be a fine thing for our constituents to know that we are working assiduously on their behalf.The third debate that is coming up this Thursday—it has not been mentioned, you will be relieved to know, Mr Bone—is on mental health in London. That is another important subject, and it is right that the House should debate it, but it would be hard for me to intervene unduly in such a debate, as I represent a rural constituency in Somerset. I ought to leave that to others. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.39
May I reiterate the great pleasure it brings me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to consider the issue of time?We are with Job who—you will recall from the Old Testament, Mr Bone—ruminates on the question of time:“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of an hireling?”We look back over many centuries to see how time should be allocated. Job complains that when he is sleeping or waking he wonders whether the night will ever end; and when he is awake he wonders whether the day will ever end, so that he may go back to sleep.I can see that members of the Committee may feel exactly the same as they discuss the intricacies of this important Bill and look at the fundamental question of time and how it should be allocated. How should time be divided between the many duties that Members have in their constituencies, in the Chamber, and in Committee to ensure that they are completed in a way that is becoming to a Member of Parliament, is satisfactory to the electorate and is supported by their party Whips? All of those duties have a role, although I would say that our electorate are the most important and the people to whom we should look for guidance, instruction and thoughtfulness as to where we should spread ourselves.I notice, talking of spreading ourselves, that we can now spread lots of butter on our bread once again, because it turns out to be wonderfully healthy, which is a nice note in a health service Bill. I hope we can come back to that later. We have to spread ourselves in various ways.The question today is do we spread ourselves at 9.25 am on a Tuesday, 10 o’clock on a Tuesday, 9.25 am on a Wednesday and at 2 pm. Or, should we consider, re-evaluate, be brave, bold and modernising and look to Thursday? Thursday is the great day named in honour of a Norse god, Thor, who is the god of thunder and  lightening, but also of oak trees. He is a god we can claim for our own in England as the symbol of our nation and, as it happens, of the Conservative party. A rather wishy-washy oak tree is used for the Conservative party, but none the less, that symbol is associated with a Norse divinity, although not one I believe in. That does not mean that the stories about him are not interesting or relevant to the question of whether 11.30 am and 12 o’clock on Thursdays might be not only the best time but the ideal time, the perfect time—that ethereal concept which many of us have been seeking throughout our lives—where time is used to its greatest efficiency.We often think of Rudyard Kipling and his “unforgiving minute”. Will those unforgiving minutes on a Thursday be more forgiving on a Tuesday or a Wednesday? I think they would; there is more latitude on a Thursday for a thorough examination of a Bill, and we can consider it in the round. I have looked at debates that are coming up. On Thursday we will miss important debates—there is a debate this coming Thursday on public houses and, representing a rural constituency where cider is particularly popular, that is something that I would wish to be involved in, but there not be a substantive vote at the end of that debate. It will come to a conclusion with a motion to take note, so my absence will not unduly discombobulate my constituents. They will feel that it is reasonable that I should attend to the health of the nation on a Thursday rather than consider public houses.This Thursday, there is also an important debate—undoubtedly, unquestioningly, indubitably—on the destruction of antiquities in Syria and Iraq—a very serious problem and one that many of us would be interested in, but I fear that the powers of the House in this respect are limited. The days of empire, when Mesopotamia was a British protectorate of which we had charge, are gone. That has all changed. What this House decides on Syria and Iraq in relation to antiquities, although an important subject and an interesting debate, is something that we would miss if we were present in this Committee Room, or in the Committee Room that we were in last week. I am sorry, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, that we have been downgraded. I think of Committee Room 14 as the crème de la crème of Committee rooms: a fine, large room where members of the public can come in their hordes to watch our deliberations and where there is a special pen, a much bigger pen, for the press. This Thursday, if we are in a Committee Room, it would be a fine thing for our constituents to know that we are working assiduously on their behalf.The third debate that is coming up this Thursday—it has not been mentioned, you will be relieved to know, Mr Bone—is on mental health in London. That is another important subject, and it is right that the House should debate it, but it would be hard for me to intervene unduly in such a debate, as I represent a rural constituency in Somerset. I ought to leave that to others. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.39
On a point of order, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; we much enjoyed serving under Mr Hood a few days ago, but the privilege will be just as great today. I want to ask for a point of clarification on Standing Order No. 42 and the issue of “tedious repetition”. May I take it that if the repetition is amusing, that is allowed, but if it is tedious, it is not? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.7
It is worth noting that, if there were some emergency that led the Prime Minister to use his powers to issue a statutory instrument and it was approved by the House, the election could be delayed by two months. It would then be normal for the House authorities to allow a pro rata number of sitting Fridays. It is not impossible that there may be another sitting Friday to consider private Members’ Bills. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.12
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ascribing wisdom to me that I do not deserve. I believe it would not be orderly for us to sit before 11.30 am. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.14
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Is there a way of bringing to the Committee’s attention your presence of genius, as you noticed that my hon. Friend was coming to the end of his speech? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.18
On a point of order, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; we much enjoyed serving under Mr Hood a few days ago, but the privilege will be just as great today. I want to ask for a point of clarification on Standing Order No. 42 and the issue of “tedious repetition”. May I take it that if the repetition is amusing, that is allowed, but if it is tedious, it is not? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.7
It is worth noting that, if there were some emergency that led the Prime Minister to use his powers to issue a statutory instrument and it was approved by the House, the election could be delayed by two months. It would then be normal for the House authorities to allow a pro rata number of sitting Fridays. It is not impossible that there may be another sitting Friday to consider private Members’ Bills. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.12
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ascribing wisdom to me that I do not deserve. I believe it would not be orderly for us to sit before 11.30 am. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.14
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Is there a way of bringing to the Committee’s attention your presence of genius, as you noticed that my hon. Friend was coming to the end of his speech? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/02-0_2015-02-10a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.18
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what systems are in place to ensure that a previous finding of maladministration against the Child Support Agency does not occur again under the same circumstances. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-04.223492.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g223492.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, under what conditions the Child Support Agency is obliged to consider an applicant's lifestyle rather than evidence of earned income and unearned income from relevant assets. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-04.223493.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g223493.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many individual decisions made by the Child Support Agency have been overturned by the First and Second Tier Tribunals in the last three years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-04.223494.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g223494.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make an estimate of the potential cost of implementing each clause of the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-03.223177.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g223177.q0
I apologise for boring the Leader of the House on this subject, but I must bring him back to the debate requested by the European Scrutiny Committee one year and two weeks ago on the free movement of EU citizens. In answering my previous questions, my right hon. Friend has been immeasurably emollient and tactful, but nothing happens. It is a grave discourtesy to this House that the Government do not follow the proper scrutiny procedures. It is about time we had this debate, and it is a considerable disappointment that it was not in his announcement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-05a.421.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g424.0
I wish to support the very important point that my hon. Friend was making about the Procedure Committee, on which he and I serve. Two members of the Committee could not be present if we sat on Wednesday afternoons. That would distort the balance of the Committee and be very disadvantageous to a Select Committee of this House. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.241
I believe it is right to say that it is possible to accept manuscript amendments to a sittings motion. The inspired idea from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford might be something that we can explore later in the debate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.247
There is a further argument that my hon. Friend might be interested in referring to in relation to having the first meeting on Tuesday. Under the Standing Orders it is possible for the Committee to meet during the recess that follows. If it were felt needed  by next Tuesday—a day earlier than proposed by the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Eltham—it would be possible for us to set dates for the whole of the following week. That would allow time for us to take evidence if a motion were passed or to have a full and frank discussion of all the amendments that have already been tabled, as well as the many that I feel are emerging from the production line towards the Public Bill Office, where I know they are looking forward with excitement to the suggestions that will be made about the Bill. There would be ample time to discuss all the issues in the recess, when most of us would love to be in Parliament— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.249
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way again. My point really was that his amendment would allow us next Tuesday  rather than next Wednesday to consider whether it was necessary to sit during the recess and to amend the sittings motion at that point. It might be clearer next Tuesday whether we would need all that extra time during the recess, giving right hon. and hon. Members an extra day to rearrange their diaries, which may already be filling up for the recess. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.252
But not as beautiful as Somerset. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.210
As our hon. Friend the Member for St Ives was not here for the first half hour of my hon. Friend’s speech, I wonder if he might reprise some of the important details. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.216
On a point of order, Mr Hood. I would be grateful if you could clarify something for me. Because Standing Order No. 42 comes under the heading “Order in the House”, it does not seem to me that it applies in Committees. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.218
It is the 2013 edition. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.220
On a point of order, Mr Hood. The heading is “Order in the House”. It is clearly a reference to Committee of the whole House, not to Public Bill Committees. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.222
On a point of order, Mr Hood. I apologise: under Standing Order No. 89 you are given the powers to rule on tedious repetition under Standing Order No. 42—you have those powers subject to the further Standing Order, but not under the original Standing Order. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.229
I admire the diligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. It occurs to me that if the amended motion were to be agreed, and if the criticisms that have been made that there is not enough time turned out to be right, it would be open to the Committee to amend its sittings hours for future meetings. That is all provided for both in Standing Orders and in “Erskine May”, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to accept the proposal as it stands. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.184
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I was minded that Padre Pio was capable of bilocation—it is recorded in several sources. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend does not have the same extraordinary mystic abilities as Padre Pio. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.192
On a point of order, Mr Hood. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.203
I would not dream of contradicting you, Mr Hood. It is a privilege to serve under your wise, benign chairmanship, but “Erskine May” makes it clear that Members should express their views within the confines of parliamentary language. The hon. Member for St Ives was offensive to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and Conservative Members are far from gruntled. I rely on you to defend the honour of my hon. Friend. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.205
Mr Hood, did we really hear my hon. Friend say that we should not have sittings of this House because we might need to speak to journalists? I must confess, I do not think that is conceivably a right order of priorities, much though I admire the journalists. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.146
I thought I might give my hon. Friend some comfort on the matter of Dissolution and therefore the time available for the Bill, in that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for a two-month extension of the Parliament, subject to a statutory instrument, in the event of the Prime Minister’s considering that there is a necessity for that. The hon. Member for Eltham may be able to petition the Prime Minister to do that, to help his Bill to pass. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.157
On a point of order, Mr Hood. Following what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire said, the sittings motion is defective because it says that the Committee shall“meet on Wednesdays at 9.25am and at 2.00pm when the House is sitting.”The House is sitting today. If we were to pass the unamended motion, we would be passing an invalid motion, so we are debating amendments to a defective motion, and I would suggest therefore that we cannot carry on discussing this. We need to resume with a correct motion as the basis for amendments. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.163
Further to that point of order, Mr Hood. I am sorry. The time for today’s first meeting was of course agreed in the normal way, but what I am saying is not that the times have been agreed for meeting today, but that the motion on which we are debating amendments—the motion itself—is defective because, if passed, it would require us to meet at 2 o’clock today, which we do not have the leave of the House to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.165
On a point of order, Mr Hood. I would be grateful if you could clarify— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.167
I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks that it might be wise for the Committee to make a representation to the Procedure Committee, to the extent that we can, to consider whether Wednesday is not the most inconvenient day to have proceedings on private Members’ Bills. So much goes on on Wednesdays—Wednesday is such a busy and important day— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.131
I am sorry that there should be a division between those of us representing constituencies that sit in Wessex counties and have “north east” in their names—we normally provide a unified phalanx—but it seems to me that Thursdays are a particularly vacant day, as people are not always here for business, and so would be a marvellous day on which to have these Committee sittings, because there would be so much time available for people to have the pleasure of being in the Committee and listening to so many erudite and engaging speeches. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.136
I think the Committee is grateful for my hon. Friend’s courteous conduct of the debate. I am deeply surprised, looking around the room at some leading parliamentarians who devote their lives to attendance in this building and who view nothing happier or more joyful than being in the Chamber or in Committee, that any of them would dream of sloping off on a Wednesday evening when we want to be here busy with the business of Parliament as our constituents would expect. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.138
It was noble of my hon. Friend to accept the criticism from our right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, but is he not being too hard on himself? When he tabled his amendment, he was perhaps unaware of notice 113 on today’s remaining orders of notices, because of the dilatoriness that he established earlier of the Opposition, allowing for public evidence to be called. Unless my hon. Friend had the power of foresight, which I am unaware of any Member having, he would not have been able to know that it might have been possible—once that motion is put before the House and, one hopes, approved—to be able to take evidence, as was done, so rightly, by Her Majesty’s Government for the 2012 Act, when they asked all the royal colleges and charities and everybody who had a view to come forward. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.106
On a point of order, Mr Hood. It seems that once again the Members’ entrance is giving difficulties and may be obstructing a Member getting in. I wonder—[ Interruption. ] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.109
On a point of order, Mr Hood. I wonder whether you could clarify if the microphones are working and whether there might be a problem hearing the debate at the back. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.120
Further to that point of order, Mr Hood. “Erskine May” records that a motion may be moved for a candle to be brought in, which was used  when the lighting failed in the old Chamber. I wonder if it would be possible to move a similar motion to ask that candles be brought in. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.124
It struck me that that the reason my hon. Friend decided to chop 35 minutes off was that it would allow him to speak with his normal brevity and concertina our affairs into a shorter time. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.77
Is my hon. Friend saying that he has gone, in a radical change from precedent, for 10 o’clock because he is in fact one of the leading modernisers within the Conservative party—somebody of whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude) would be proud? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.58
I assumed that my hon. Friend had gone for 10 o’clock as a courtesy to the Clerks because, when the Procedure Committee discussed the changing of the hours, one point made by the then Clerk of the House, Sir Robert Rogers—now Lord Lisvane—was that if the House starts early, sometimes the Clerks have to get in enormously early in the morning to ensure that all the papers are ready, and that giving them an extra half hour would allow their brains to have the proper rest that they need to function in the remarkably effective way in which our Clerks’ brains always operate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.64
On a point of order, Mr Hood. Is it open to the Committee to adjourn earlier if it feels that that is advisable? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.70
I am not coming back to it. I am merely coming back to what the hon. Member for Eltham said. I left it late as a courtesy to the Bill’s promoter, who is the right person to table such motion. An hon. Gentleman with his standing in the House, and who is held in high regard on both sides of the House, might think it necessary to introduce such a motion to ensure that the Bill is scrutinised by the House and is more widely available to the public. I did not table the motion earlier simply as a courtesy to him. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.28
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.33
On a point of order, Mr Hood. I am shocked that there has been such an attack on your chairmanship of the Committee—that it could possibly be thought that you would allow such impropriety. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.37
It may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I tell him that, if the pension is a self-invested pension, it may be necessary to declare it, but if it is invested by a third party it is usually not. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.46
On a point of order, Mr Hood. As I am sure you are aware, the guidance is that in Committee it is essential for Members to highlight their interests. Because of the sensitivity aroused by this socialist propaganda, there is a much greater feeling about the need to do so for the sake of clarity than would have been the case had these pretty dishonest documents not been circulated. We are responding to something in the public domain to—[ Interruption. ] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.48
Further to that point of order, Mr Hood. The door is marked as the entrance for Members. The other door is for the Chairman and there is another for members of the public. Members ought to be able to come in through the door that is marked for Members. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.5
On a point of order, Mr Hood. May I say first what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship on this important Committee? My point of order is about declarations of interest. As you may be aware, socialist organisations have cast aspersions on a number of Conservative Members with remote and tenuous connections to companies involved with the health service. In my case, that has been on the basis that a donor to my association may or may not have had investments in health care businesses. I am merely declaring that I do not have an interest.This is tangential, but I feel that as it has been raised by socialist organisations, including the union Unite, it is important to put it on the record. I also urge other Members, particularly Opposition Members—I specifically exclude you, Mr Hood—to make similar declarations if they have interests in relation to health service trade union funding. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.7
Further to that point of order, Mr Hood. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.19
I am not challenging what you said, Mr Hood, but I thought that it might be helpful to bring to your attention Question 71 on page 3574 of today’s Question Book, which asks the Secretary of State for Health for an estimate of the potential costs of the Bill so as to determine whether it would involve any new or increased charges. I also thought that it might be helpful to remind the Committee that you have the discretion to decide whether clauses should be put to the Committee and debated if you feel at any point that a money resolution would be required. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.21
On a separate point of order, Mr Hood. I thought that it might be helpful to draw the Committee’s attention to page 52 of part 2 of today’s Order Paper, on which there is notice of the following motion:“That the Public Bill Committee on the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill be given the powers provided for under Standing Order No. 63(2)(b) to send for persons, papers and records.”Given the importance of the Bill, we ought not to proceed until the House has taken a decision on that motion and we have therefore found out whether the Committee may send for persons and papers and thus carry out a full, proper and detailed inquiry into all aspects of the Bill, which would include getting independent views and consulting thoroughly and widely. Would the Committee therefore be best advised to meet again next week, when the House might well have had an opportunity to consider that important motion, although I use the word “important” with a certain degree of diffidence as the motion stands in my name? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2014-15/National_Health_Service_%28Amended_Duties_and_Powers%29_Bill/01-0_2015-02-04a.1.0?s=speaker%3A24926#g1.23
Will the hon. Lady give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-03e.160.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g180.2
Following the question from my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), may I ask whether my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that 70% of Bath and North East Somerset is green belt? It is some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, and allowing Bristol to spill over into it would essentially mean the recreation of that most unloved county of Avon. The Government’s commitment to preserving the green belt is therefore of crucial importance. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-02-02a.10.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g11.1
I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might give the figure for Somerset. I have a feeling the project is not enormously popular there, either. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-23a.484.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g494.4
I begin with an apology, as I may have to leave early to attend the repeat of the Simon de Montfort Parliament in the chapter house of Westminster Abbey.I join other members of the Committee in thanking the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was an absolutely brilliant Chairman and incredibly smooth in getting us to agree when there were bits of disagreement and in bringing people together. As a Member who was elected only in 2010, I was interested to watch someone who is an expert in his craft. He operated the Committee incredibly well.I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was a terrific member of the Committee. Although I will not mention every member of the Committee, I hope that she will take it as a compliment when I say that she was very much the grit that allowed the oyster to produce a pearl. While our Chairman was doing his silky stuff, for which other members of the Committee might have fallen slightly more easily, the hon. Lady ensured that we were kept up to the mark and that things were rigorously questioned and not just accepted. Her membership was crucial to our unanimously agreed report.The report was important because we were tackling complex issues. The fundamental purpose of this place is to be a legislature, but we must be run in as efficient a way as possible. We have a duty to the public purse; we should not spend money carelessly. We have to ensure that we are run efficiently so that members of the public can come here. It is a very important constitutional right that our constituents can turn up in Central Lobby on any day of the week when the House is sitting and demand to see their Member of Parliament, to ask their MP to behave in a particular way. That means that the general operation needs to be smooth running in admitting people and providing some element of hospitality.We also have to get legislation through, which I sometimes regret, saying that an awful lot of legislation is bad and it would not necessarily be a bad thing if wewere a little less efficient. On the other hand, the Government need to be able to get their business through the House, and they need the authority and expertise that is brought to them by the Clerks.I hold the Clerks in the highest regard. They were referred to in some of the evidence that we received as a “priestly caste”, and I rather like that view of them. As a Catholic, I have always been taught that one should not criticise or question priests unduly, because they have that high authority. Oddly, in the priestly class of Clerk, that is important. There are 650 Members of Parliament, all of whom, individually and jointly, think that they know best. They think that, having read one page of “Erskine May”—which is about what I have done—they have suddenly become experts on every aspect of procedure, and are willing to challenge Clerks with 40 years’ experience.Those bewigged figures have an authority through their learning, their length of service and, indeed, their appearance—an authority that is accepted by Members, and that allows the business of the House to progress—and anything that we did in our report had to preserve that. However, we had also observed that some aspects of the House were not running as efficiently and as smoothly as might have been hoped, partly because of the absurd burden that was placed on someone who was performing the job of both Clerk and chief executive.I happen to dislike the title “chief executive”. I think it is part of a title inflation that has affected every organisation. Even in a two-man band, one of the two has to be the chief executive. It has become part of a culture of flattery, and of raising things that do not necessarily need to be raised, which I find broadly disagreeable. None the less, the title had been introduced, and it meant that one person was expected to do absolutely everything. For instance, people would contact him if they were upset about the gymnasium. I must confess that nothing has ever worried me about any gymnasium at all. I never go near such places. I think that raising one’s hand to hail a taxi is quite enough exercise for any individual day. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-22a.407.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g434.0
That sounds far too energetic, but never mind.The fact that a chief executive was being bombarded with petty requests meant, inevitably, that the job was becoming unmanageable. The number of people who were coming in, and the growth in the business that was going on, meant that the role needed to be divided. However, as we observed while the Committee was sitting, there are occasions when matters that we think are completely routine and entirely administrative suddenly become constitutional.I was a member of a private Member’s Bill Committee. When I turned up, I found that the Committee Room had been hired out for—I don’t know—a tiddlywinks contest; certainly not for any parliamentary activity. Although everyone knows that the business of legislative Committees takes priority over any other business that is going on in a Committee Room—which is quite right—dealing with that is a clerkly role, not an administrative role. The more one thought about it, theclearer it became that it was impossible for the head administrator to be above the head constitutional person, but also that the head administrator needed to have enormous authority and clout in order to get things done.One of our fascinating discoveries—this happened when I was talking to members of staff with the hon. Member for Walsall South—was that no one actually knows how anything is decided in this illustrious place. I had a great conversation with a gentleman from Portcullis House, which, as some of us know, is that remote office space that takes us away from the Chamber, about a room booking. He said that one person had told him that drink could be served but not food, another person had told him that neither could be served, and the Speaker had said that both were allowed. I said to him “Well, who did you follow?” You will be glad to know, Mr Speaker, that he quite rightly replied “Mr Speaker, of course.” For all the governance that may be put into this place, there are authorities which are not necessarily written down, but which carry—rightly, in my view—a great deal of weight, and the director general needs to be in that position.The right hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned that we had bandied about titles when we were discussing what the director general ought to have been called. I had various favourites. I went through the list of titles in the Royal Household from which I thought we might be able to learn. We briefly considered “comptroller”, with a “p”, but that was rejected, eventually and somewhat reluctantly, after I had a discussion—with the leave of the Committee—with a journalist, the great Brendan Carlin of The Mail on Sunday. [Interruption.] I believe that it is traditional not to recognise the Galleries, but never mind.I asked Brendan Carlin whether we would be teased if we used the title “comptroller”. He immediately said to me “fat”, and I am afraid that the image of Thomas the Tank Engine diverted us from “comptroller”. My other favourite was “grand bailiff”, but I regret to say that “grand bailiff” got no takers. So director general became the title: a title that carries implicit authority, power and prestige, but does not confuse the operation of a Parliament with an intrusion of the private sector that is entirely unnecessary.This place cannot have a chief executive. When the chief executive of BP—and goodness, Lord Browne’s evidence was impressive—says “Go”, his minions “goeth”. When the chief executive of the House of Commons says to a Member of Parliament “Go”, the Member of Parliament—however new, however humble, however diffident—says “Why?” If 650 employers, effectively, are not willing to be told to go, a very different role is needed: a role that requires more tact and subtlety and understanding. The private sector comparisons were therefore not the correct ones. I think that we have got this big task absolutely right. We have made the role manageable, but we have maintained the primacy of Parliament and the primacy of the legislative process.As for the other aspects with which we have dealt, it is not, I suppose, that unusual for a mini-crisis to lead to a process that uncovers matters that can be significantly improved. The administration of the House of Commons, although in the hands of very impressive and capable people, was an enormous mystery to anyone who had not served on the House of Commons Commission. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall South in that regard.When we looked at the organogram—which is an ugly word, to be honest—we had no idea who was reporting to whom about what, and I think that one of our major tasks is to cut that structure down so that it is understandable. That is not just important to Members of Parliament, because it is very easy for them to have their views heard. They have opportunities to question the Leader of the House, to send messages to the Speaker, and to speak directly to the Clerk. A Member of Parliament has access to where authority lies. However, the employees of the House—the staff of the House—need to know who makes a decision, and whether that decision is authoritative or merely a suggestion made by someone higher up in the pecking order than them, but not high up enough to make the decision authoritative. I think that if we cut down the administration and simplify it, we will have clear lines of command that everyone will be able to understand, and better engagement with the people who work in the building.I want to make one point on the relationship with the other place—with the noble Lords. I understand why their lordships are very nervous about this place trying to grab power from them. If I were in that place rather than in this place I would take the same view: that the House of Commons—by virtue of ultimately controlling the purse strings and by having the democratic mandate—is always in a position to peer over at what their lordships are doing. Although the champagne story may have been legendary if not mythical—anyway, I think their lordships ought to drink the highest quality of champagne; after all, if you’re a Lord, you must have some privilege of peerage—their lordships need to maintain their independence because they do not want to be a subsidiary Chamber. They are a second Chamber—the second Chamber—but not a subsidiary Chamber. In their procedures, and sometimes in aspects that do not immediately seem procedural but may have procedural implications, their lordships will want to keep their independence. We as the lower House must be incredibly tactful and diffident in how we deal with them. It is not for us to tell them what to do; it is for us to make tactful and polite suggestions. If we do that, we may, I hope, be able to maintain a good working relationship, but we must ensure that we do not appear to be engaged in a power grab.I am honoured to have served on the Committee, which was very good and worked speedily. I am glad that today we are debating our report and that the Leader of the House and First Secretary of State is so generously allowing us time. He does not allow us time for some other things, but he is being very good in this respect. It is a happy coincidence that the former Clerk of this House, Lord Lisvane, was introduced to their lordships’ House earlier today. If he has read this report, I hope he thinks it is up to the standard of the reports issued when he was still in office. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-22a.407.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g435.1
In this year of anniversaries, may I draw to the Leader of the House’s attention the fact that today is the first anniversary of the European Scrutiny Committee’s request for a debate on European papers relating to the free movement of people? In the past couple of weeks, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have all appeared before the Committee and told us that, although they have a particular love of parliamentary scrutiny, they cannot explain why the motion has not been brought forward. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, as First Secretary of State and therefore senior in the hierarchy, might be able to bring this delay to an end, or are Her Majesty’s Government in fact celebrating this anniversary by a party enjoining upon itself the joys of evading parliamentary scrutiny? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-22a.391.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g399.1
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of a stopwatch. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that in the church in Nempnett Thrubwell in my constituency there is a 20-minute egg timer for the sermon. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-16a.1138.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1145.1
I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-16a.1138.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1142.0
That is the same as me—my constituency is Somerset North East and we North Easts have to stick together in the broad scheme of things.I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I always believe in trusting the people. I like having referendums because the assent of the people shows where their spirit and mind are. I happen to think that most people would turn out in a referendum and vote in favour of prayers if the council thought that was a good idea. I think we would find that people are very much in tune with the history of the nation and that they like the fact that, even if it is not their Church —it is not mine—this country has an established religion. I happen to feel that the ceremony, tradition and link with our history that that brings is broadly popular, even with people who are not of that faith, and, therefore, that the referendums would pass. I would be more than happy, however, to put that to the vote, to see whether my speculation is right or whether the view of secular society is right. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-16a.1138.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1142.2
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I am well aware of the numbers issue and, for obvious reasons, I would certainly not want to see a Division in which fewer than 35 Members participated. If my right hon. Friend chooses to withdraw his amendment, I shall not shout—or even mutter—against that. I shall certainly support him if he does that. I simply support the underlying principle of his amendment.I disagree to an extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on the cost. Of course, there will be some cost, but a referendum could be held on an ordinary council election day—it would not need to be a special election day—on the first Thursday in May, so I think the cost is broadly affordable. One should always be willing to put one’s own view to the test of the view of the British people—the electorate—and have confidence that they will come to the correct decision.There is an extraordinary trend of radicalism in being on the side of the secularists, and I am not entirely sure that I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friendthe Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which is a very rare event, because he is one of the wisest Members of this House and almost invariably right. However, I feel that “shall” does not go far enough and goes too far at the same time. I would be in favour of a Bill saying that every sitting of every council should start with an extraordinary form mass—the Tridentine mass—as that would be absolutely splendid. Ideally, it would be a high mass with so much incense that people started sneezing. It would be a fine piece of legislation, but it is not what the Bill is trying to do; it is simply to enable people to pray if they want to. The word “shall” would take this Bill too far, but if one were introduced in the next set of private Members’ Bills to re-establish Roman Catholic worship at the beginning of all such sessions in our public life, I would certainly not oppose it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-16a.1138.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1142.4
Is my hon. Friend saying that if the amendment were passed, the Bill would require a money resolution and therefore fall at this stage? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-16a.1138.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g1141.1
Is not the shadow Chancellor making the Chancellor’s case for him: that the first thing to do is get fiscal stability, and then we get a growing economy and tax revenues come through? Tax revenues are always a lagging indication of economic performance, and they will come through because of what this Chancellor has been doing. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-13b.738.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g750.3
Does not this show precisely the reverse? Does not it show the ambition and forthrightness of the Government in having such a busy programme, even at the end of five years, that they need an extra 67 days? That dynamism is something of which the Government should be proud. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-12c.677.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g684.3
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on piloting the Bill so safely through the House. It is not necessarily easy to get private Members’ Bills through—and nor should it be—given the Scylla of the Back-Bench Tories who are not keen on new Bills coming through and the Charybdis of the Opposition, who sometimes suck Bills down to the bottom of the sea. I therefore congratulate him warmly on having achieved it.My hon. Friend has done something that rather surprisingly was not done in the first place. The explanatory notes state that clause 1“has the effect of removing the Secretary of State’s discretion around whether the requirements for registration with CQC should cover safety of care.”It is amazing that the Secretary of State had that discretion. Why on earth would anyone want the Secretary of State to be able to think, “It doesn’t really matter if the safety of care is implemented or not. I think on this occasion I won’t bother with it.”? How reassuring it is that somebody has had the sense and wisdom to bring forward a Bill to close that extraordinary loophole, drawing on the experiences that are well known, particularly to the Members of Parliament from Staffordshire.I take great comfort from what my hon. Friend said about the identifiers not being—to carry on with my Greek mythology—a Trojan horse to bring in an identity card system. It really would have set trouble alight if he had been trying to do that, but it seems perfectly reasonable to have a system that sees efficiently who people are within it and has a consistent form of identifying them. Having a notional go at an identity card system does not seem reasonable, so I am glad that he has stated so clearly that the Bill is not intended to do that. I am sure that their lordships will take careful note of that.It is a tremendously important Bill that is being passed today, and one that I am sure that the other place will want to expedite because there is little time left between now and the end of the Session. The Bill will ensure that the primary duty of not doing harm to patients is established in law. As I said, it is extraordinary that it was not there before. I commend my hon. Friend for his discovery of that lacuna and his closing thereof. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g524.0
indicated assent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g510.2
I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is an important new clause on a matter that it would be wise to have clearly set forth in primary legislation.The heart of the matter is, unfortunately, the European Union and the mutual recognition of qualifications within the EU, and there are good reasons for that. The only way to open up service industries generally is if mutual recognition of qualifications takes place, so if we are to have a single market in services that is an important basis for it. However, above and beyond that there must be a fundamental principle of patient safety, which is embodied in this excellent Bill, and a lack of good language skills and of understanding of a language is a danger in both directions. It is a danger for the doctor who is listening to the patient explain his or her symptoms and it is also a danger when the doctor explains to the patient what steps the patient needs to take for better health. If there is confusion, it can have a seriously deleterious effect on the patient’s health.We must be clear that this is not about restrictive practice or protecting the market for British doctors but about ensuring that there can never be such confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says, if this provision runs into trouble with the European Union, we need to state clearly that it is of such fundamental importance that it must override international treaty obligations. It was Disraeli who said in his speech in the Manchester free trade hall in 1872, “Sanitas sanitatum,omnia sanitas”—that the first duty of Minister is the health of his people. That statement has underlined and guided Conservative policy for nearly a century and a half. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g511.1
Indeed, although I am less clear on the relevance of that, and I was not intending to swap Disraeli quotations all morning. I just wanted to make that point about a fundamental principle that has guided our party since the 1870s and its relevance in defending health through ensuring that there is a proper standard of English-speaking—or in Wales, Welsh-speaking—physicians. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g512.1
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is possible that that is taken care of by other parts of the Bill. Clause 1 contains the fundamental commitment that unreasonable risks should not be taken, and language could be seen to be part of that. The reason I like the new clause is that it makes it absolutely clear that language is fundamental.It is very hard to think of a circumstance where a lack of communication could possibly be safe. There may be cases where a patient cannot speak, or absolutely dire emergencies where there is no alternative form of treatment, but in the ordinary course of events language skills must be essential for somebody who looks to work in this country for any length of time.I hope that the Government will think about this new clause very seriously, and perhaps consider whether a “notwithstanding” aspect is necessary, and that if they do not accept it today, they will look at the matter again in another place. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g512.3
I have just checked the territorial extent of the Bill, and parts of it apply to Wales as well, so we should not forget the need perhaps to be able to communicate in Welsh where appropriate. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g514.0
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry to bring him on to familiar ground, but would this new clause be acceptable under European Union law? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-01-09b.509.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g510.0
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will review the degree to which assessments for Child Support calculates an individual's assets, to ensure that the assessment is comprehensive. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-12-17.219326.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g219326.q0
I very much admire and respect the emotion that comes from those who support the Bill, though it is not an emotion that I would express in that way. The problem with the Bill is that it does not reflect that depth of emotion. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said. The stories that she tells are desperate and tragic and deserve to have help in solving them. All decent people would think that is right. But then it is a question of how that help is to be given, and by what means this country as a whole, both as a Government and as a people, decides to give it, and that is where I find the Bill so inadequate.I disagree with the hon. Member for Wakefield when she says that the Bill delivers on the commitment given in the party manifestos. Although I happen to think that it was not a wise commitment to give, I think that the Bill singularly fails to do that, because it says it does something but provides no means of ensuring that it is done, and that is not a proper means of legislating. If we had wanted a real Bill, it should have been introduced on a resolution from a Minister, because it would tie down spending, and Back-Bench Members, under the relevant Standing Orders, cannot bring in such Bills. The Bill is therefore unable to make a commitment to spending in any real sense.What could a Government Bill have done instead? It could have set out where the revenues would come from to fund the promise. It could have hypothecated some element of taxation. It could have set up an independent body to ensure that the revenue was dedicated to the causes that are, in and of themselves, enormously admirable. But the Government chose not to do that. Instead, they chose to support a Back-Bench measure that will have absolutely no effect beyond a declaratory one.What is the benefit of a declaratory Bill? We heard an hon. Gentleman say that it might lead others in the same direction—a good example Bill—but I do notaccept that or think that it is right. We do not change the laws of other countries by what we say we are going to do. We might do it by what we actually do, but a mere declaration of good intention does not, in fact, lead to the good intention being carried out. Indeed, were that the case, the Bill would never have been brought forward, because the original declaration—on the commitment to 0.7% of GDP—was made in 1975, and it was made by a large number of countries that all missed it for many years. The idea that fine-sounding declarations lead to behavioural change is, I think, demonstrably false.We then come to the details of what the Bill actually says. It would reinforce the duty to reach the 0.7% target from 2015, but, as has been pointed out, it would not come into effect until half way through 2015 so there is an internal contradiction as to its efficacy. It merely makes a statement that that has to be done, and done under a certain framework.Beyond the declaratory effect, I do not think that that is the right way to legislate. All Governments at all times have a duty to consider their budgetary expenses in the round. There may be occasions when the most pressing expenditure is for a budget different from overseas aid—perhaps the health service in a particularly difficult winter, or the defence budget if the tensions caused by Russia become more extreme. To declare that one area of spending will be protected when no others will is not a sensible way to proceed when constructing the public finances. That has become clear with the issue of hypothecation of tax revenues, which has almost invariably led to an excessive amount of revenue in one area when other areas are in need. The most obvious example is the old road fund licence, where we simply ended up with too much money for roads and the fund was raided.That is always the case with hypothecation of taxation, and it is why the Treasury has always set its face against hypothecating taxes, but the same applies to the reverse principle—the hypothecation of expenditure. There may be years when that is not affordable. There may be years when we need to spend more, perhaps because there is an emergency. That is the type of aid I am most in favour of: the emergency aid that only Governments can deliver. I believe that other forms of aid are fundamentally a matter of private charity, which Governments support through gift aid, allowing charities to claim back the taxation, rather than being something where it is right for Governments to tax modestly well-off people in this country in order to be charitable.I have a slight suspicion—this does not apply to current Ministers and certainly did not apply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who was a most distinguished Secretary of State—that it is always possible for Governments to grandstand about their generosity overseas using other people’s money. Therefore, I would not follow the principle even if I thought the Bill was any good, but I do not think it is any good. Its sanctions are useless. It refers to laying a statement before Parliament. Statements are put before Parliament every day. Hansard is full of statements put before Parliament, which are hardly read. I read some of them. Some are very interesting and important, and they are always beautifully written, because Hansard’s command of the English language is so fine that they do not allow sloppy grammar to getthrough, even from Her Majesty’s Government. A statement from a Minister is not a particularly powerful form of being held to account.The provisions laid down in the Bill for what the statement will need to say are otiose. No Bill, once it is an Act of Parliament, can be enforced against proceedings in this House. If a Minister entirely fails to take any notice of the requirements of clause 2(3) and puts down a statement saying, as a former Labour Minister memorably said, “There’s no money left”, or something pithy like that, the Bill has no form of recourse against what he has done. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.586.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g601.2
No, it would not be enforceable by judicial review because the sanction provided for is a proceeding in Parliament, and proceedings in Parliament are not judicially reviewable. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.586.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.1
No. There is a remedy, but it is not enforceable in the courts. It is essentially at the discretion of Ministers because it is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not challengeable outside.Parliament is very unwise to bring its proceedings into legislation because it is of such constitutional importance that our proceedings are not judicially reviewable. If we legislate in such a way that we bring our proceedings into the orbit of the courts, we have to be careful about whether a judge may feel that Parliament’s intention was to allow the courts to interfere, overriding the Bill of Rights. I therefore take the greatest exception to clauses 2(3) and (4), which are erroneous in terms of what Parliament ought to be trying to do.The Government really ought to be held to account for clause 5. They removed from the Bill a detailed, if perhaps rather expensive, way of holding the Government to account and put in something of the most utter wishy-washiness.I return to the question of whether this Bill increases or decreases trust in politicians. When the House of Commons, and later the House of Lords, legislate to say merely that it is nice to do something, but with no means of enforcing it, and failing to use all the procedures that we have at our command to make sure that it happens, are we assuming that electors do not understand what we are doing and that we can pull the wool over their eyes? Will they not look at what we are doing? This is not a real keeping of the commitment that was made. It is a minimalistic, tokenistic approach to pretending that we have done what we said we would do, because when we looked at what we had proposed in our respective manifestos we realised that it was a silly thing to dobecause the hypothecation of expenditure is fundamentally unwise in any budgetary system. For that reason, I will oppose Third Reading. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.586.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g603.3
This Bill sets such a bad precedent that we should not follow it in other areas, and we should look to repeal it rather than extending the precedent right, left and centre. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.586.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g598.3
I simply do not think it is right for a statement, which is a proceeding in Parliament, to be the subject of legislation. I think it is a direct interference in our proceedings through the legislative process. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g578.4
I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, which I will speak to before turning to some of the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends. I have tabled amendments in a number of categories. Some are intended to make the Bill achieve what it is intended to achieve, and some are offered up in a less friendly spirit towards the Bill, of which I fundamentally disapprove.I will start with the most important proposal—the one that is intended to make the Bill serious. It seems to me that a lot of fine words are being spoken in passing a Bill that can do nothing at all: it has no sanction, but is merely an intention, an expression of good will. That is not the sort of reason for which legislation is passed. It does not have that majesty and authority that the statute book ought to have; it is a wish, a hope, a desire, but it is not something of fundamental strength and importance. Hence my new clause 2.We hear from all parts of the House lots of pious talk and fine words about how important it is that we spend this money, but when it is suggested that there should be some enforcement of how the money is spent—that there should be some penalty if it is not spent—we hear that it is not possible, it is too difficult, it is unfair on the Ministers concerned. Surely it is simply a matter of making our legislative desire effective. If Ministers and shadow Ministers do not support new clause 2, one has to think that the Bill is merely a matter of fine words and pieties, and not a serious legislative desire.That is why I challenge Front Benchers on both sides to accept new clause 2. I challenge them to do so on a bipartisan basis, because it is deliberately phrased so that the penalty comes into effect in the following financial year, so that if there is a change of Government, it will affect the incoming Ministers. Why? Because they all buy into this proposal. They are all in favour of frittering away public money overseas—of spending 0.7% of our wealth there, even though the statistical evidence is not available until some time after the moneyis supposed to have been spent. There are in-year revisions that inevitably lead to money being spent without the proper rigour being applied. Let them show that they really mean it, that they really are in this together, and that they really do subscribe to the pieties that they propose—to the fine words and grandiloquent sentiments that they express up and down the country—by saying that if they do not achieve it, they will accept a fine of £1,000 on their Cabinet colleagues in the following year.One thousand pounds is the amount that has traditionally been used in this House to indicate the disapproval of the performance of a particular Minister in his or her duties, and it makes for a sensible extension to the Bill. I do not believe that anyone who supports the Bill can oppose new clause 2, because if they oppose it, they do not really mean what they say. Without this new clause, there is no effective mechanism of enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that there would be no teeth to the Bill without the new clause. Without the new clause, there are not even dentures, there are not even gums, to gnaw away at the failures that there may be in implementing the details of the Bill. Let us put in some mild teeth—some teeth that will have a little bit of a bite, but not a huge one. One thousand pounds will not devastate the financial circumstances of a Cabinet Minister over the course of the ensuing year, but it will make them put their money where their mouth is.That is important, because this House is very good at spending taxpayers’ money and very happy to send it around the world, but what happens if we say instead, “No, it won’t be taxpayers, but the Ministers themselves who find that their money is reduced if they don’t do what they say.”? They run away, they are scared, they are frit, they do not like it, but they are quite happy to spend taxpayers’ money all around the world on projects that may or may not succeed, with almost no accountability to this House or anywhere else.I am surprised that the shadow Minister, who is a sensible and wise fellow, has not decided to take up my new clause and put it forward as an Opposition proposal. I thought that I could reasonably have expected the Opposition to add their names to it as an indication of their passion for overseas aid—not a passion that I share, but one that is honourable, as long as it is taken to its logical conclusion. Hence, new clause 2 tries to pave the way for people to support what they believe in and what they want to do, by ensuring that it has meaning and meat, rather than being a simple expression of will.Why do I dislike mere expressions of will in legislation? I do not believe that mere expressions of will are what Acts of Parliament are for. Acts of Parliament are not there to say that we believe in motherhood and apple pie, even though I happen to approve of both. I think that motherhood is a wonderful thing and I like apple pie, particularly if the apples are from Somerset and cream and sugar are provided, but that is not a matter for legislation. To put wish lists into legislation is a poor way of legislating. All legislation needs to have a consequence if it is ignored. It must not be free of any form of consequence and, therefore, open to being ignored by any future Government.The only penalty provided for in the Bill is that a statement must be laid before the House. Statements are laid before the House every day. If Members look at theback of today’sHansard, they will find a very interesting statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy on a meeting that took place in Brussels on 27 November 2014. It is an important statement and an important part of European scrutiny, but the Government are not going to stand or fall on a written statement. Whether he made it today, yesterday or in a week’s time is not fundamental to how this nation is governed, and so, as a sanction, it is entirely worthless. Not even an oral statement is required. One wonders why the promoter and sponsors of the Bill have not come up with a suitable sanction. They may have thought of one that was better than the one I could— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g580.1
My hon. Friend raises a very serious and important point, because it is not the usual practice of this House to pass retrospective legislation. Indeed, as a constitutional principle it is very bad to pass retrospective legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g576.2
When other countries are in their greatest hour of need, it is often our armed forces who come to their rescue soonest. It would therefore be better to spend the money with them so that they can respond. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g571.2
I accept the thrust of the amendment and what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. However, the Office for National Statistics keeps on revising things over such an extended period that I would like to know when the final figure is deemed to be the final figure. He will be aware that the apparent double-dip recession that the socialists accused us of having turned out not to have existed once the figures were revised. This has become an increasing problem as the ONS has made more and more revisions to historical figures. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g573.0
Is it not obviously absurd to have one Government Department accounting on a different basis from all the other Government Departments? We cannot have one Department working to a calendar year when the whole Government budgetary process is based on a financial year. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g574.0
The situation is even worse than that. There will be pressure always to overspend above the target because in years when GDP turns out to be less good, there will be no means of clawing the money back, but where it has grown faster, there will be an expectation that more money will be paid or a statement laid. Therefore, there is a pressure in the Bill for there to be more than 0.7%. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g568.0
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g559.1
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has misspoken in attributing an amendment to me. It is not my amendment, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an opportunity to correct the record. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g559.3
Before my hon. Friend moves on, he mentioned payments to the European Union being included. As most of those payments go to poorer countries in the EU, is it not perverse that they do not count as overseas aid? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g555.0
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g554.1
It is always one of life’s great pleasures to be in the Chamber, and it is always a sadness to be away from it.My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, and I wonder whether it brings us to the underlying tokenism of the Bill: without any proper mechanism for checking whether the money is well spent, it is merely a grandiloquent expression of intent, rather than proper legislation. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-12-05a.545.6&s=speaker%3A24926#g554.3
Is not the real problem the free movement of people within Europe? It creates a deep unfairness for people coming in who might be family members from outside the European Union. Is there any logic in giving preference to people who might just have left prison in the European Union and who can get in here freely, when husbands and wives from Commonwealth countries that have long-standing relationships with us find it difficult to come here? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-28a.1213.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1216.1
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I am still discussing new clauses 2 and 3. I have not yet moved on to his amendments, towards many of which I am very sympathetic. What concerns me about the new clauses is that they would allow the courts to rule on what was going on in the House. It is very important to prevent that from happening, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. The courts are rightly reluctant to rule on what they believe to be fundamentally political decisions, and it seems to me that new clauses 2 and 3 would give them authority in regard to fundamentally political decisions, such as whether someone’s standard had been that of a decent Member of Parliament who had committed no offence. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g687.0
I happen to think that that is absolutely right, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. It is important that our proceedings allow people to be honest and to speak freely without incriminating themselves, and that must be a protection that we seek to maintain. I think that if we undermine it by bringing the courts into the details of the behaviour of Members of Parliament, we will fail. I would go in the opposite direction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would go the whole way and leave it to the British electorate. I would place my trust in them, and let them get on with it. But the worst of all solutions—worse even than a Committee of chums somewhere upstairs deciding that we have all behaved beautifully—is to involve the court system.I also cannot agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which is rare, because I often do agree with him. He has proposed a “pledge” in new clause 4. I do not like the pledge. I think that it reads as a sort of bureaucratic announcement that we are all going to do good things, in that awful “speak” that is so common in conferences, about how you should be a leader and grab hold of your management skills, and all that waffle.I do not like that at all. It does not accord with my vision of myself as a Member of Parliament. I think that Members of Parliament are here at the service of their constituents, and that their constituents will judge whether they are doing their job properly, rather than someone’s saying that they have not shown leadership. What on earth does “showing leadership” mean? If you are the Prime Minister it is easy, but what is a Back-Bench MP meant to do? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister always shows wonderful, clear, decisive leadership. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is cackling from his Front Bench. Many people think it is a pity that he did not show leadership by trying to become leader of the Scottish socialists, which would have been very welcome. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g687.2
Or even the Scottish Labour party, which is much the same thing.I do not think this presents the right image of what a Member of Parliament is trying to be. A Member of Parliament is not trying to be some sort of second-tier bureaucrat. A Member of Parliament is someone who is there to represent his or her constituents, to take a view on the interests of the nation, both nationally and internationally, to stand up and be counted on the basis of what he or she says or does, and then to be held to account by the electorate, rather than making some waffly pledge.I also think that in trying to get away from the oath we already take, it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the oath. The purpose of the oath is not to show we do not want to change the laws, and it is not to show even that we are necessarily monarchists—although, for the avoidance of doubt, I certainly am—but it is to show that we accept the norms and standards of the country as they currently exist and are willing to use those to change the law through Parliament, and subscribing to that is an indication that a Member of Parliament will behave properly in seeking change, rather than do it in a demagogic or potentially violent fashion. Therefore the oath as a statement of loyalty to the nation via the sovereign is a very important statement and does not preclude people from holding republican views. It merely requires them to express them and act upon them in a parliamentary and legal fashion. I think that is an important distinction and it is why I would oppose new clause 4 and it follows that I would oppose new clause 5. I also think, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Foyle, that the two did not go together—that trying to give it to the people and then giving it to a court did not work.I want to finish very briefly on the amendments from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. By and large I think they are extremely well considered. I believe that the right of recall should be as wide as it can possibly be made. I would like it to be more generous, and therefore reducing the threshold is sensible. It is obviously sensible, in the atmosphere over the last few years and considering the sensitivity of expenses, to say that somebody who has committed an offence in claiming their expenses ought to face the risk of recall. That ought to be a basis of it because it shows that somebody in this House has behaved badly in their basic terms of membership of this House, so I completely support that, but I cannot support the final amendment on retrospection. I think this is unjust. I see the reasons for it and the case the hon. Gentleman made about the Member of the Scottish Parliament who had committed many serious crimes, but it indicates a problem with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament that it could not do anything about that.I also accept that somebody at, let us say, 30 who goes out and robs a bank is not thinking, “Good heavens, if I get into the House of Commons in five years’ time, I may lose my membership because that may be part of the penalty.” I am sure they are thinking more immediately about the risk of a police officer being there and catching them in the act and hauling them off to chokey, but none the less it is unfair to penalise people in a way they did not know could apply to them before they committed the offence, and if this House does not stand up pedantically for the rule of law, nobody will. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g688.0
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to say something? He is wavering about whether to intervene. I may be persuading him; he may wish to withdraw his amendment on the strength of what I am saying.There is a further protection, which has been overlooked throughout this whole debate on the issue of recall, and that is that if the behaviour is so egregious—so shocking to all good common sense—then this House of Commons has the right to expel that Member anyway. We should not forget that, or allow it to wither on the vine. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g689.1
The hon. Gentleman puts as good a gloss on it as he can, but I do not think it changes the fundamental principle. We could equally say that a Member of Parliament who had committed an offence should be subject to double the time in prison, regardless of when the offence was committed. That would be fundamentally unjust. If we were to say that from tomorrow Members of Parliament who commit an offence should have double the time in prison, that would not be unjust. That would be simply saying that Members of Parliament should be held to a higher standard, and that is perfectly arguable, but to say for an offence committed previously that the punishment can be increased is to act against justice and that is something it is important not to do. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g689.3
I think the PCCs are rather an irrelevance to what we are discussing and I want to remain in order. I believe it is important to be pedantic about upholding the rule of law, and therefore I will oppose that amendment from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I will support his other ones, but I must reject the proposal that we bring the courts— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g689.5
I shall give way, of course, to the hon. Lady. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g689.7
I always give way to the hon. Lady and she always then serves up the most impossible and difficult interventions. I think she is the Michael Holding of interventions, with these very fast balls being bowled at me. My stumps have disappeared behind me, but what I would say is that I would apply exactly the same rules to those people as to anybody else. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g690.0
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is right about that because, interestingly, the ability to expel peers very carefully ensured it was not retrospective to the crime or to the sentence. It was right to adopt the principle that it is fundamentally unjust to punish people when they did not know that was the punishment at the time when they committed the offence, so I must oppose his amendment. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g690.2
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and we have seen this in some of the recent celebrity sex offending cases: people have been sentenced under the old rules. That is a good principle of law and this House ought to maintain good principles of law. That is why we should reject that amendment, and reject the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), because they bring the courts into our proceedings, but I think we should accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that allow more free-flowing recall, because ultimately we should trust the good sense of the British people, especially those in Somerset where most good sense is to be found. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g690.4
I am in a good deal of agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I came into this debate, most unusually, undecided as to how I was going to vote. No guidance was provided from the Whips about how I ought to vote, which I view as a great advance. It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that he is not trying to tell people how to vote. It shows a considerable wisdom to return to the traditional practice of having free votes on constitutional matters. I hope that this will be continued by other parties and in other Parliaments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says that I do anyway, and he is probably broadly right, but I think this should be encouraged across the House.I was interested in new clauses 2 and 3. There is a need and desire to widen the ability for recall and to make it easier for constituents to remove Members of Parliament who they think have behaved improperly. The main thrust of the Bill is too narrow, which is a lost opportunity but not a fatal one because it can be developed in future Parliaments. Constitutional development often happens at a slow pace, which is not something I am against.I think we want constitutional reform to take place at a pace with which people are broadly comfortable and that carries the nation with it.New clauses 2 and 3, however, fundamentally misfire. Instead of making this something that will be decided by the electorate, the provisions introduce a third party—the courts—to try to determine what the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out are fundamentally political issues. The restrictions to which he referred, particularly the third example where the misconduct case is “brought for party political” reasons, are a complete negation of what is being tried to be achieved. Any complaint must be brought for party political reasons, and any attempt to unseat a Member of Parliament is going to be carried out by somebody who has a party political affiliation of some kind, and it will be to the benefit of a political party to remove a Member of Parliament from another party. Even if the petition and process were started by some wonderfully high-minded figure, of which I am glad to say we have a very large number in North East Somerset, politicians would get involved in it because they would see the advantage, particularly if the Government had only a small majority, of removing a Member of Parliament or indeed of causing such inconvenience that would make it almost impossible for that Member of Parliament to continue in office.Another issue involved is the legal costs. Are we to provide a fund to help Members of Parliament defend themselves in these circumstances, or do we find that the Member of Parliament could be bankrupted by the very process—to see whether he had committed misconduct in public office—and thus removed from Parliament anyway, even though the misconduct in public office could not, in the event, be proved?We in this House have always sought to keep the courts out of our own proceedings. There seem to me to be two valid sets of people who can intervene in our proceedings: the general public who send us here, and who have an absolute right not to send us here but to send other people in our place; and our own systems, procedures and Committees, which are able to regulate internal goings-on in the House—a right that we declared long before we achieved it in the Bill of Rights.As I listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I remembered a gentleman whose name was, I believe, Ron Brown, a Labour Member of Parliament in the 1980s who, in the midst of proceedings in Parliament, picked up the Mace, waved it around, and—unlike my noble Friend Lord Heseltine—dropped it. As a result, the Mace was damaged, and it was sent off to Garrard, the then Crown jeweller, to be repaired. Ron Brown was faced with a bill and a suspension. However, he had acted because of his passionate belief about whatever the political topic of the day had been. That was a proceeding in Parliament, but it was certainly misconduct. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g685.0
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in allowing interventions, but his argument also applies the other way around. If somebody were found guilty of an offence committed 40 years ago, for which the punishment was a maximum fine of 2 shillings and 6 pence, they could still only be fined that amount. It is a very important legal principle that the penalty may not be increased, but it may be reduced. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g670.3
I am sympathetic to most of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but I do have a query about this one. Is it not, as a general principle, unfair to apply a punishment to people that they did not know might be a punishment at the point at which they did the wrongdoing? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g670.1
I agree that it would be better for the decision to be made by the electorate—by the court—but is not the problem with the pledge being determined by the court that the pledge is fundamentally political rather than legal? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g664.0
New clause 3(7) reads:“Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”However, if the House of Commons were to introduce a new code of conduct and that were to be interpreted by—effectively—an election court, would it not risk contravening the Bill of Rights? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-24b.649.2&s=speaker%3A24926#g658.2
May I begin by thanking the shadow Home Secretary for bringing forward this debate? In a wonderful spirit of bipartisanship, she has spared the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary their honour. Thanks to the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister’s promise to have a debate on the European arrest warrant has been met. That shows an admirable, broad-minded, good-spiritedness although we are still some time from Christmas. I will not dwell unduly on the procedures, as those were covered quite thoroughly last week, other than to remind the House of what was said in the other place on Monday. The dissatisfaction is not limited to this Chamber. My noble Friend Lord Boswell, who is not a hard-nosed, hatchet-faced Eurosceptic, said:“The problem now is a handling issue. The Government—particularly the Home Office—seem to be crippled by fear. Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, they have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 333.]That is an extraordinary statement to be made in their lordships’ House, which is a much less aggressive, more kindly place than this Chamber sometimes.I want to move on to the substance of the issue. With seven seconds for each of the 35 articles into which we are opting, I will not try to cover every one of them; I feel obliged to stick to the arrest warrant and answer the point that the arrest warrant is not essential to extradition. It is perfectly possible to have extradition arrangements either with the European Union or with individual nation states, as we do with the United States of America. That is then outside the ambit of the European Court of Justice. It is the Court of Justice of the European Union that is at the heart of the matter. Constitutionally,it is the real problem, because all our safeguards are speculative—the Home Secretary admits that herself. It has not yet been judged by the Court of Justice as to whether those safeguards will be upheld, and there is no appetite within Europe for reforming the basis of the arrest warrant. I am glad to see the Home Secretary returning to her place.In evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear that efforts to rewrite the details of the arrest warrant to put in some of the protections did not meet with any support. When a representative of the Commission gave evidence to the Lords’ Extradition Law Committee, she said that there was no willingness to transform the arrest warrant to bring in those safeguards. The European Court of Justice, an ambitious court that has historically extended its powers to cover an increasing number of areas, will be in charge of how extradition from this country takes place from 1 December. That is very dangerous, because it risks some of those things that we in this country hold most dear; it risks people being extradited to countries that do not have habeas corpus. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g378.0
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Habeas corpus is at risk. We also risk bringing in the European public prosecutor, because if that body is created—and it is under discussion—we will find that it can get the member states that join to issue arrest warrants, circumventing the protection that we have in our own law and the referendum lock. Of absolutely crucial importance is this issue of mutual recognition. Once we start with mutual recognition, we then set similar standards, and our justice will have crept away. The arrest warrant is very dangerous; it is against Tory party policy. The procedure has been dreadful and we should defeat it this evening. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g379.2
It is not a question of the sinner who repenteth. Even Homer nods. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g374.0
Will my hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g372.1
indicated dissent. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g373.0
How confident is my right hon. Friend that after 1 December, when the Court of Justice of the European Union will decide whether an arrest warrant issued by another member state is valid, the protections brought into domestic British law will prove to be robust? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g344.1
Will my right hon. Friend give way? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g349.2
My right hon. Friend’s speech is taking a long time because it is so interesting and important. Following on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), I wanted to say that there are three points the Home Secretary has just mentioned where Her Majesty’s Government have negotiated with the Commission and have accepted the Commission’s no as authoritative without really pushing. This does not bode particularly well for an attempt to renegotiate the treaties after the next election. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-19a.333.1&s=speaker%3A24926#g350.0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the UK has given the notification described in Article 28(1) of EU Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213183.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213183.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the UK may exclude any offences from the scope of the European Convention on Extradition that fall under the scope of the European Arrest Warrant and cannot be moved from that warrant's scope by the UK; and what offences the UK has so excluded. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213180.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213180.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other people have had their extradition from the UK under a European arrest warrant blocked under the proportionality test in section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 since that Act came into force. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212692.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212692.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other people have had their extradition from the UK under a European arrest warrant blocked under the provisions of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 since that section came into force. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212692.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212694.q1
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other people have been extradited from the UK under a European arrest warrant since sections 156 and 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212692.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212695.q2
If we accept the motion proposed by the shadow Home Secretary, we will not forgo the debate; we will be allowed a full debate and the Home Secretary will be able to return with a proper motion on the European arrest warrant. The shadow Home Secretary’s motion is much to be commended. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1260.2
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no guarantee, should the Opposition’s motion be carried, that we would get the proper debate that so many people are demanding, but the Government, having behaved pretty shamefully today, will be facing huge embarrassment if they do not give in to the clear will of the House, which is that there should be more time for debate. I urge him to support the shadow Home Secretary. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1260.4
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1245.7
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1243.4
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) quite understandably does not read his communications from the Whips Office with care and attention. Had he read section 4 of the document on today’s business, he would have found that it said:“We then move to a motion to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations, which includes the European arrest warrant.”I hope I have been able to clear up this matter. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1223.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1244.0
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Home Secretary was listening earlier when you said that the European arrest warrant can only be mentioned peripherally in the main debate, because she has just said that she intends to speak about it. It might be helpful if you reiterated your earlier advice, in case she had not been listening. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1205.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1217.5
This really is a sorry day for the Government. The motion to allocate time was tabled on the basis either of error orof falsehood. The Whip went round to Conservative Members of Parliament and said that today’s motion would be on regulations including those on the European arrest warrant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons. He has a brain the size of a planet. He is of the highest quality and the most honourable gentleman one could find. I cannot believe that he would make a basic error of this kind.We have Whips scuttling around the House saying that a vote will be taken tonight that will be indicative of what the House of Commons thinks about the European arrest warrant. That is a procedural absurdity. It is legislative legerdemain. The Government cannot conceivably decide that one vote is indicative of another. What might they decide next? Perhaps that a vote to cut taxes would indicate that we wanted to increase them, or that a vote in favour of longer prison sentences would indicate that we wanted to cut them? This is the way of tyranny, because it takes away the right of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1205.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1212.4
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a point that is, as always, worth listening to, but he is in error. This matter needs to be debated thoroughly, because it is my contention that this is not accidental. A letter was sent to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), saying that we would have a vote. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury said to this House that there would be a vote. The Lord High Chancellor and the Home Secretary sent a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee promising us that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant and all the other opt-ins and opt-outs. Now that we come to it, however, it is proposed that there will be a vote, after extra debating time, on a number of relatively obscure measures that require statutory instruments, and that that will be intended to determine the view of the House. That is not proper parliamentary procedure; it is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure.I often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—and with others, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—on European matters, but this debate today is of a degree worse than our disagreements. Our disagreements are polite and they reflect our fiercely held views, which we discuss in an upright and, I hope, proper fashion. This approach and this motion are fundamentally underhand. That is why there is such anger, not only on the Conservative Benches and among Eurosceptics. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member forLeicester East (Keith Vaz), is shocked by this, as are the Scottish nationalists, who think that this is a poor way of behaving. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1205.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1213.1
I agree with my right hon. Friend; we should be having the time to debate the issues that really matter, not obscurities. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1205.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1214.1
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because I hope it brings home to those on the Treasury Bench the deep discontent. I was saying earlier how deeply grateful I am to you, Mr Speaker, that you are protecting the rights of the legislature against the Executive by clarifying the terms of this debate. As I look down from here at the Treasury Bench, I want to see something that is solid, but I am worried that it is made of increasingly crooked wood. We want to have it re-solidified and we want this motion withdrawn. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1205.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1214.3
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your helpful reply to my inquiry on this matter. Is it not right that debates are, on most days, in the hands of the Government? They are perfectly capable of putting down clear motions that people will understand. If they want a vote on the arrest warrant, they can have one. Does this not seem to you, as it does to me, to be procedural prestidigitation to persuade people that they are voting on something on which they are not really voting? Would it not be better if the Government were to put down a clear motion on some future day that we could vote on properly? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-10b.1200.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g1202.2
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the average time in each of the other EU Member States between a decision to try a British national who is wanted for extradition or has been extradited for the alleged offence that is the subject of that decision and the trial for that alleged offence (a) commencing and (b) concluding. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212696.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212696.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many British nationals were extradited from the UK to each other state party to the European Convention on Extradition under that Convention in each of the last five years; what allegations or offences each such person was extradited for; whether each such person was convicted of the extradition offence; if they were extradited for prosecution; and what sentences were imposed upon each. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213178.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213178.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other persons were extradited from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant for conduct that took place in whole or part within the UK but was not a crime under the law of the relevant part of the UK in each of the last five years; and under which provisions of sections 64 or 65 of the Extradition Act 2003 prior to its amendment by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 such extraditions took place. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213182.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213182.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is permissible for the UK under (a) the European Convention on Extradition and (b) that Convention's additional Protocols that have been ratified by the UK to require satisfactory prima facie evidence of an alleged offence before extraditing a person for that offence. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213185.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213185.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of extraditions of (a) British nationals and (b) other persons sought from the UK under the European Convention on Extradition and its additional Protocols were blocked for reason of incompatibility with Convention rights in each of the last five years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213184.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213184.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what forecast she has made of the proportion of extraditions of (a) British nationals and (b) other persons sought from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant in which a decision to charge or try the wanted person will require that person's presence in the country seeking their extradition after the Police and Criminal Justice Act. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212696.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212786.q1
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what evidence her Department holds on extraditions of British nationals from the UK that took place over the period April 2009 to April 2014 under the European Arrest Warrant which led to the bringing into force of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212696.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212701.q2
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 23 September 2014 to Question 207075, on what legal basis Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online database through their participation in the Schengen acquis. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212697.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212697.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many British nationals were extradited from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant to each other EU member state in each of the last five years; what allegations or offences each such person was extradited for; whether each such person was convicted of that extradition offence; if they were extradited for prosecution; and what sentences were imposed upon each. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213179.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213179.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is permissible for the UK under Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition to refuse to extradite British nationals in certain cases rather than to impose a blanket refusal to extradite any British national. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213171.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213171.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of extraditions of (a) British nationals and (b) other persons sought from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant were barred for reason of incompatibility with Convention rights in each of the last five years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213181.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213181.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on what grounds in EU law the UK may refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant under the provisions of (a) section 13, (b) section 14 and (c) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213168.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213168.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what forecast she has made of the likely proportion of extraditions sought from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant of (a) British nationals and (b) other persons that will be barred under (i) section 12A and (ii) the proportionality test in section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 as amended, in each of the next three years. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-11-03.213170.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g213170.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will make an estimate of the costs of Clause 3 of the Affordable Homes Bill; and if he will make a statement. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212658.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212658.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other people have had their extradition from the UK under a European arrest warrant blocked under the provisions of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 since that section came into force. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212694.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212694.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) British nationals and (b) other people have been extradited from the UK under a European arrest warrant since sections 156 and 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212695.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212695.q0
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what forecast she has made of the proportion of extraditions of (a) British nationals and (b) other persons sought from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant in which a decision to charge or try the wanted person will require that person's presence in the country seeking their extradition after the Police and Criminal Justice Act. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-10-30.212786.h&s=speaker%3A24926#g212786.q0
Why, therefore, are the Government not bringing forward a money resolution for the European referendum Bill—or, for that matter, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), because he will be on his feet in a moment if I do not include him? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.611.0&s=speaker%3A24926#g612.2
I thought I had moved it in the speech I made earlier. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g592.1
May I move the amendment with a few words, Sir Roger? https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g592.3
rose— https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g591.4
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I take the view that the Chamber is the final and highest authority. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g583.1
It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship in the Chamber, Sir Roger, rather than being hidden away in a dark corner of the House.I have a very modest amendment to bring forth: amendment 38, which I hope the Committee will consider. All I am doing is changing one word. I am changing the word “maximum” to “minimum”, so I am in fact changing only two letters; I am changing “ax” to “in”, so we are axing “ax” and bringing in “in.” The reason for doing so is because I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith): I think that if we are going to have recall we should do it properly, and if we are going to do it properly we should do it generously, and if we are going to do it generously, it should be easy for people to exercise their right under it. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g574.0
My amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and he kindly added his name to the list; indeed it appears immediately beneath mine on this amendment, so yes, indeed, it does have his support, which I am very grateful for. It is a recognition of the difference between constituencies and the fact that this point is already provided for in other areas of legislation. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said and he made some very important points in saying that there may be discrepancies between one constituency and another and raising the issues of cost. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g574.2
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to make arguments for somebody who is not here, which is a wonderfully hypothetical approach to be taking. I must make my own arguments for what I believe about this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will make his arguments when he is here, as he did so eloquently last week in favour of his amendments to the Bill. I must focus on my amendment 38, and its purpose, however. I hope that clarifies the matter, Sir Roger.I was saying that I completely understood what the Minister was saying on the issues of differentiation between constituencies and cost, but the first point is accepted in all our elections anyway, and is accepted in legislation that this very Government passed. The legislation providing uniform constituencies made exceptions for the very largest geographical areas, because it recognised that it is unreasonable not to make different arrangements for those beyond a certain size. Therefore, when there are thousands and thousands of acres—sometimes into the thousands of square miles—we make different arrangements from those that we have for the much smaller, more compact constituencies.I do not fully accept the Minister’s point about cost. Clause 18 provides Ministers with considerable powers to make regulations affecting the opening hours of the places where the petition may be signed. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has raised this matter in the past. In my view, it would therefore be possible for people to sign the petitions in local post offices during their opening hours. This would involve minimal cost, while giving constituents in the larger geographical areas easier access to the process.This is important because the difference in size between the constituencies is extreme. I have here a little list, at the top of which is Ross, Skye and Lochaber, whose area is 4,709 square miles. That is a little over 3 million acres, which is three times the size of the county of Somerset. To have only four places in such a vast area would place an unreasonable constraint on people’s ability to exercise the democratic right that we are proud to be giving them. We should be positive about the Bill; it is a good thing to allow constituents to have greater control over their Members of Parliament. Access to the process would be very easy in the smallest constituency, Islington North, which has an area of only 2.8 square miles. Such a constituency would hardly need more than one place, because it would not be too difficult for people to get around, unlike in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.In my own area, God’s own county of Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—whom I am happy to see in his place—represents an area of 367 square miles. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is even bigger, with an area of 417 square miles. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-11-03a.566.3&s=speaker%3A24926#g575.1
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment