Mr Heath:
I have to say that days are scrapped in this House for all sorts of reasons. However, as a matter of fact, we sit more often, and as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, we have provided a huge range of opportunities—more than before—for Members to have their say. However, there are times when the House is not sitting—when public holidays occur, for instance—and we do not automatically say, “Well, we’ll sit on the Sunday, because the Monday is no longer available.” Instead, we look at the calendar of the House as a whole and we ensure that there are ample opportunities. The principle—I will set it out again—is that the Executive
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1078
should not decide what happens in Westminster Hall. That is the position that we are in, and to move away from it without careful consideration of why and how we should do so would be a mistake.
I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that we have made. He is trying to ensure that the Government are properly held to account, and he is absolutely right in that, as is his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. He will recognise that the Government have already introduced elected Chairs of Select Committees, Back Benchers having control of the agenda through the Backbench Business Committee and extra time for the scrutiny of Bills on Report—all things that improve the scrutiny of Ministers by Back Benchers. That is absolutely right, and the balance has genuinely shifted towards Parliament and away from the Executive. I want to maintain that.
The hon. Member for Kettering and his colleague are putting forward proposals with the best of intentions, and I understand that. However, I do not think they are either necessary or desirable at this point, although I am certainly prepared to go away and listen to the points that they make and consider how we can best accommodate proper scrutiny, as I always have done. I commend the hon. Gentlemen on the spirit of their amendments; equally, I will ask the House to reject them if they are pressed. I have set out what the purpose of the House should be in agreeing to the motion before us and in rejecting the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.
2.58 pm
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): The motion before us gives the Government the opportunity—or the right—to table the extra day’s debate required for the Budget. In tabling the motion, the Government had a clear choice: they could have extended business to Wednesday 28 March, but instead they have chosen to extend it in the preceding week, to Friday 23 March.
The first point to make about today’s motion is that it clearly illustrates the Government’s incompetent management of the business of the House, in that it was only last October—when it was absolutely known that the Budget statement would be made on Wednesday 21 March—that the recess from Tuesday 27 March was determined. The incompetence of the Government, in being unable to arrange their business in the required time for the debate on the Budget statement, is staggering. The fact that we have to be here today, debating and putting right the Government’s incompetence and their mistake in timetabling the Budget business, is staggering. However, even given the situation that they are in, the Government have not decided to put the start of the recess back by one day, but have, in effect, chosen to go for a Friday sitting.
Given the Government’s incompetence in scheduling business, there is a further question that begs to be answered. Why are they not making the more obvious choice of extending the business to Wednesday 28 March? Is it because the Prime Minister does not like being held to account in this Chamber? Is he trying to avoid Prime Minister’s questions? The evidence is crystal clear. An analysis of recent parliamentary recess dates shows that the House of Commons has risen on a Tuesday, rather
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1079
than the more usual Thursday, on 63% of occasions since the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) became Prime Minister.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): If that is really the case, how does the hon. Lady account for the fact that the present Prime Minister has spent more time at the Dispatch Box than the previous Prime Minister did?
Angela Smith: It has to be said that the previous Prime Minister faced up to his global leadership responsibilities in the face of the biggest recession in this country for 60 years, unlike the present Prime Minister, whose global leadership involves standing on the sidelines and walking away from negotiations. Our previous Prime Minister played his part and led the world in showing the way out of the previous crisis.
This Government’s unwillingness to be held to account is becoming more apparent by the day. First, they rushed through the Commons a number of highly controversial pieces of legislation in the early days of this Parliament, denying this Chamber the right to proper scrutiny of their provisions.
Mr Bone: The hon. Lady is making a fair point, but it is one that could equally have been made about the last Government. Is it the Opposition’s view that we should now get rid of programme motions?
Angela Smith: That is not necessarily the case. What we are discussing today is the need for competent scheduling of the business of the House, rather than last-minute motions on the Floor of the House as a result of the Government getting themselves into a hole in regard to the time they have allowed for debate.
The Bills to which I have just referred are now bogged down in the Lords, with the detested Health and Social Care Bill alone requiring more than 1,000 Government amendments so far. Furthermore, we have Ministers regularly ignoring the rights of this House over important announcements about Government policy. Many Members will recall the occasions on which it has been necessary to point out to the House that a Minister has yet again briefed the media, before briefing the House, on an important matter.
Now, we have a Prime Minister who will apparently do almost anything to avoid being held to account at PMQs. The House is therefore entitled to ask why the Prime Minister is so reluctant to account to his peers for his actions. This is, after all, the man whose self-confidence led him to say, live on air, “Bring it on!” when asked in 2009 whether he was looking forward to the general election. This is the man who wanted to “Fire up the Quattro”, and who gave voters the clear impression that he was a man who meant business and knew what he was about.
Brandon Lewis: Given the hon. Lady’s comments about the Prime Minister attending Prime Minister’s questions, what does that tell us about the previous Prime Minister, who spent about half as much time at PMQs as the present one?
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1080
Angela Smith: I think the hon. Gentleman asked that question only a few minutes ago—[Hon. Members: “You didn’t answer.”] The question was answered.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab): I am moved to suggest to my hon. Friend that one of the reasons that the previous Prime Minister felt able to leave the Wednesday Question Time to his deputy was that he trusted her.
Angela Smith: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is another reason for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) finding it impossible, on occasion, to get to the Dispatch Box. He gave global leadership in the credit crunch, and he trusted his deputy. Whether this current Prime Minister trusts his deputy is open to question.
All the evidence suggests the opposite of what we have heard, and that our Prime Minister is a leader who cannot get his facts straight and who is increasingly running scared of being held to account on the detail of his Government’s policies. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will illustrate this point with examples. Let us take, for instance, what the Prime Minister claimed only the other week:
“The proportion of police officers on the front line is up”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 295.]
That is a misleading claim, if ever there was one. Of course, his reference was to the proportions of front-line officers rather than their overall numbers. Thus, where perhaps 12 front-line officers were assisted in their work by six support staff, there might now be only six front-line officers and only two support staff. The proportion would be higher, but the number of front-line officers would have been cut by 50%. In the end, the Prime Minister will not be able to continue to defend the line that front-line policing is being protected when budgets are being cut by 20%. About 16,000 police officers are likely to lose their jobs, and the Prime Minister knows that he will be called to account for that at Prime Minister’s questions.
The Prime Minister has, of course, already been called to account at the Dispatch Box by the Leader of the Opposition for his Government’s disastrous Health and Social Care Bill. Only yesterday, we witnessed in this Chamber the Prime Minister thrashing around, desperately trying to trade insults and to deploy soundbites in an attempt to deflect attention from his unpopular and unwanted top-down reorganisation of the NHS.
Two weeks earlier, just before the recess, the Prime Minister claimed at Prime Minister’s Question Time that 100,000 more patients are being treated every month. It was possible to make that claim, however, only if one compared May 2010 with November 2011. If one compares May 2010 to May 2011 and November 2010 to November 2011, one finds that the figures are, in fact, static. Equally, the Prime Minister claimed that there were 4,000 extra doctors since the election. That is true, of course, but it is not something that he can take credit for. After all, it takes between five and seven years to train a doctor and the extra numbers are therefore a legacy of the previous Labour Government.
So there we have it—a Prime Minister who knows that his cavalier approach to answering the questions posed to him by this House is under pressure, who knows that his slapdash approach to Prime Minister’s questions is being increasingly exposed, thereby revealing
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1081
him and his Government as incompetent and not up to the task of taking this country through the very challenging times in which it finds itself. No wonder this Government want to avoid Prime Minister’s questions wherever possible. It is the one occasion every week when the spotlight is on everything they do, and they increasingly worry that they will be found wanting. In the interests of accountability and democracy, we oppose the motion.
3.7 pm
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I beg to move amendment (a), after ‘(1)’, insert
‘there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall on Monday 19 March between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock;’
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
‘, and there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock.’.
‘and, notwithstanding the decision of the House of 21 February, on Wednesday 28 March.’.
Mr Hollobone: I give notice that I shall endeavour to press amendments (a) and (c) to a Division, so the Whips can get on their BlackBerrys and signal the troops that their presence in the Chamber will be required later. I do so more in disappointment than anger because I thought that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House were bigger men than this. On this occasion, much against their normal form, they have shown a lack of imagination and a lack of innovation. Although they do a tremendous job for this House, it is at times like this that we gently need to remind them that they are the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, and that they are here to represent the interests of Back Benchers as well as those of Her Majesty’s Government. On occasions such as this, there is a simple solution to ensure that the accountability of Government is maintained.
The Government motion proposes
“no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March”.
The reason for that is entirely understandable. Her Majesty the Queen is coming to Westminster Hall on that day to celebrate her diamond jubilee, so it is entirely appropriate that normal sittings in Westminster Hall should be cancelled for that day. No one has any argument with that. What the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House should have proposed, however, is the rescheduling of that lost parliamentary time at some other point in the parliamentary calendar, because effectively some of our precious parliamentary air time is disappearing. My amendment (a), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—to whom I must say a huge thank you—suggests that that air time should be replaced on the previous day, Monday 19 March, while amendment (b) suggests Friday 23 March as an alternative.
Westminster Hall is an important part of parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the House and his deputy have previously told the House that they support it and feel that it does a valuable job, and evidence from the Table Office supports that. The hard-working, diligent, capable, lovely, kind people in the Table Office have told
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1082
me that they receive an average of some 60 to 70 applications a week for Westminster Hall time from Back Benchers, that there can be as many as 150, and that the number never falls below 40. What better evidence could there be of the popularity of Westminster Hall among Members? Effectively, however, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are denying Back Benchers the opportunity of a day’s debate there.
Mr Bone: We heard the Deputy Leader of the House suggest that the real problem was that the Government did not want to dictate what was debated on Monday. Is there not a simple solution? The ballot could proceed in the normal way, the listing for Tuesday could be provided, and the Government could then accept it and transfer it to Monday. That would help everyone out.
Mr Hollobone: I am most grateful for that suggestion.
When I flagged up the issue during business questions earlier today, the Leader of the House said that the Deputy Leader of the House would provide a powerful response to my amendments during his speech. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House left his notes in the Leader of the House’s office, but his contribution certainly did not constitute a powerful response to the amendments, which I found disappointing. This could have been the occasion for the establishment in the Chamber of a new doctrine, the Heath doctrine, to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. The Heath doctrine could have stated that whenever a sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled for understandable reasons, the parliamentary air time must be replaced by an alternative sitting. The Deputy Leader of the House would have been applauded by Members on both sides of the House, and I am disappointed that he did not choose to grasp that chalice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is right: there are all sorts of innovative ways in which the Government could overcome the difficulty of allocating the time. If we accept that, as the rules stand, it is up to the Government to decide what debates take place, the Government could say, for example, to the Speaker’s Office through the Table Office, “We must allocate this time, but will you invite applications from Back Benchers to fill the slot? We will then take your recommendation for filling the time appropriately.” That would have been the imaginative and innovative solution that I would expect from our two colleagues, and I am sorry that they did not think of it.
There is no shortage of potential debates in Westminster Hall. Only today, we heard 37 Back Benchers call for debates on a range of subjects: cosmetic surgery, north-east regional strategy, the Royal Bank of Scotland, drought and the national water grid, the Olympics, working tax credits, youth unemployment, music exports, Syria, international women’s day, elected mayors, design patents, directory inquiries, high streets, defence procurement, work experience schemes, unemployment in the north-east, business in the community, the Backbench Business Committee, arms exports to the middle east and north Africa, apprenticeships, local heating schemes, music licences in public places, bans on protest marches, the economy, education and manufacturing, employment law, Professor Ebdon, job clubs, small and medium-sized enterprises in retail, manufacturing, energy companies and their customers, and the efficiencies of police services.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1083
That is just the list for today; I am sure that in most weeks many further requests are made to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.
Representations to the Backbench Business Committee continue to flood in, too. There is a long list of outstanding issues for which it has not been possible to allocate any time, simply because the Government have not allocated the Committee sufficient time to be able to debate them. When the Backbench Business Committee was established, we were promised that it would get 35 days per Session. The gentleman’s agreement—to use a sexist phrase—was that that would, in effect, be 35 days per year. This Session lasts for two years, however, and although I am not a great mathematician, I believe that the Backbench Business Committee should therefore be allocated 70 days for the discussion of issues Back Benchers wish to raise, but today’s Order Paper reveals that it has been allocated only 53 and a half days, and we are about to go into March. It appears that we will fall well short of that 70 total, therefore. Some of these outstanding issues could be scheduled for debate in an extra day in Westminster Hall. That would go some way towards dealing with the large number of issues that have come before the Committee.
Amendments (a) and (b) are reasonable measures intended to preserve the power of this Chamber to hold the Government to account and to allow Back Benchers on both sides of the House to raise constituency interests and concerns. Even at this late stage, it is not too late for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House to have what was called this morning a Pauline conversion and to say, “Yes, this is a good idea from the Members for Kettering and Wellingborough. We wish we had thought of it, but we’re going to be charitable because we know that these two fine gentlemen have the best interests of the House at heart. We will support amendment (a).” If they were to say that, no one would cheer them louder than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and me.
Amendment (c) would allow for an extra sitting day on Wednesday 28 March. That is a separate issue from the rescheduling of Westminster Hall time. It is, in part, to do with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about Prime Minister’s questions, but not for the reasons she suggested. I think the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. It is an occasion when the great British public tune in to see Parliament at work. If we ask our constituents whether they watch any of the parliamentary television coverage, most of them will say that they do not, but most of those who say they do will watch PMQs. It is a regular half hour each week that people know is worth watching for information, news and, frankly, entertainment. The great British public look forward to Prime Minister’s questions and I think that, just on the basic level, it is a shame that the nation and the House is denied an opportunity for Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of who the Prime Minister is and of which party is in power, because it is a great British occasion. It is a shame that by having the Adjournment on the Tuesday, we do not get Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1084
On a partisan point, I take completely the opposite view to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), because I think that the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. I understand her point of view—she thinks he does particularly badly—but these differences are what makes for good debate and for the sense of occasion. I suspect that the Prime Minister enjoys Prime Minister’s questions and that he will be disappointed that he is not able to come here on that Wednesday. I suspect—this will doubtless be written down and used against me at some future point—that the Prime Minister is being given bad advice. I do not know whether it is coming from the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip, but someone is telling him, “Look, it would be a good idea to have the Adjournment on the Tuesday, so that you don’t have to go through all the hassle of Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.” That is bad advice, wrongly given, and I suspect that the Prime Minister is disappointed that he will not have the opportunity to address the nation on that day.
On a serious level, all this does mean that the nation goes without Prime Minister’s questions for a month when it need not do so. According to the Government’s timetable, the last Prime Minister’s questions before the recess will be on Budget day, Wednesday 21 March, and the next Prime Minister’s questions will take place on the first Wednesday when Parliament comes back—Wednesday 18 April. So for almost a month the nation will be deprived of Prime Minister’s questions. Will the wheels come off the country, will the nation stop working and will everything grind to a halt? No, of course that will not happen, but there is no need to have a month between Prime Minister’s questions. We are talking about the Prime Minister of our country, and it would be a good precedent—perhaps this could be the Young doctrine—if the sign-off note before entering a recess were the Prime Minister answering questions from hon. Members in this House, to set the nation off for the recess. Would that not be a wonderful parliamentary occasion?
Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case about PMQs. Will he acknowledge that the Prime Minister will be absent again on the week prior to 21 March because of a visit to the United States, so we will have the pleasure of the Prime Minister’s presence and responses in PMQs in only one week out of five?
Mr Hollobone: I did not know that, and I am most grateful for the helpful intervention. No doubt the nation will be disappointed by that. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will relish the opportunity to see how the Deputy Prime Minister performs, and that may well make for a rather more entertaining Wednesday in that particular week. I am making a genuine point when I say that there is no need to have a month’s gap in between hearing from the Prime Minister, given that we could have a new Young doctrine that says that it is important for the Prime Minister to sign off on the Session before the recess starts.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con):
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but I wish to take issue on one matter. I hear from the Prime Minister almost daily in the media, in one way or another. We will not be
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1085
deprived of the Prime Minister. He may not be in PMQs, but he is most definitely available and speaking to the nation much more often than PMQs occur.
Mr Hollobone: Of course my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering—[Hon. Members: “Beckenham.”] What did I say? [Hon. Members: “Kettering.”] I am sorry. I know Beckenham very well and I am very pleased that my hon. and gallant Friend is the Member for it. I am delighted by his intervention and he is absolutely right in what he says. It is an echo of the debate we had on ministerial statements, in that so much of our political life in this nation nowadays is conducted not in this Chamber, but in the 24-hour news media. Of course anything that the Prime Minister or any Minister says on a TV channel is not subject to scrutiny by elected Members of this House. The important thing about Prime Minister’s questions, and one of the great privileges of our great British democracy, is that we have the opportunity once a week to question for half an hour the most powerful individual in the land. That is a very important and, I would suggest, cherished part of British political life. It is a huge shame to dismiss that by having an early recess so that, effectively, it does not take place. That is my simple point and I suspect that the Deputy Leader and Leader of the House agree with it, but I am very sad that they are not prepared to take it up.
The other point about losing the sitting Wednesday is that other things happen on sitting Wednesdays as well as PMQs. The rest of the House is in operation and we are talking about losing yet another day in Westminster Hall—yet another day on which a series of Back Benchers’ debates will not take place. Effectively, although I know Select Committees can sit when the House is in recess, it will mean another day on which Select Committees are not sitting and scrutinising the business of Departments. There are other knock-on effects from this House not sitting on a Wednesday.
By moving amendment (a), I want to tell the House that we have the opportunity to establish two new doctrines in commemoration of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee: the Heath doctrine, which will say that whenever a day’s sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled it will be replaced by an alternative day, and the Young doctrine, which will say that just before the House goes into recess there should be Prime Minister’s questions on that Wednesday to send the nation off on a happy note. I suspect—and hope—that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are big enough men to take up that challenge and establish those doctrines, but we will see whether that is true in the Lobby later.
3.27 pm
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who made a most excellent case that has probably already persuaded the Deputy Leader of the House to agree to the amendments. The danger of my speaking, of course, is that I might dissuade him. Now we are to have Heath time and Young time, the Deputy Leader of the House might have to consider declaring an interest in the debate.
I start by congratulating the Government on doing something that we never saw under the previous Government. Whenever these motions on the sittings of the House came along and were opposed, they used to
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1086
be objected to at 10 o’clock at night and rather than arranging a debate, the then Government tabled them night after night, hoping that we would not turn up to object. Of course, we did turn up every night and eventually they had to give way. The Government have seen straight away that they needed to give the opportunity for this debate and they have done so very quickly, albeit on a Thursday when there are not normally many Members about, which could have meant that they risked losing the debate. Then I realised that this is a House matter, so they would not possibly be considering putting a Whip on. I have had an electronic message saying that we are suddenly on a three-line Whip, but that must be a mistake and I dare say that the Whip will disappear to change the whipping any second now. I am making a serious point, however, and I am very pleased that the Government have allowed this debate. I want to speak briefly about the three amendments, but I should say at the very beginning that I have had a text message from Thomas and I must make it absolutely clear that he regards the Deputy Leader of the House as a goodie.
The Government are absolutely right to put the extra day on Friday 23 March. I agree entirely, as it makes eminent sense that the Budget debate should run consecutively, so I welcome and support that decision. It also makes a great deal of sense, because of the timetable of the Budget debate, to have that debate on a Friday.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Government for the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee; they were instrumental in setting up one of the greatest movements towards parliamentary democracy for a very long time. Having said that, there is the issue of the Westminster Hall sitting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) referred, to address. It is a scrutiny day and its loss denies people the right to a debate. I have to say that the Deputy Leader of the House’s argument that the Government would have to choose the topics was a little hard to swallow. Some people do not think that Westminster Hall is a very important Chamber or that the debates in it are important. I absolutely disagree. Westminster Hall debates are equally important as those in this Chamber. Indeed, I often chair Westminster Hall debates and I would argue that debate in Westminster Hall is better.
Mr Hollobone: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, as usual, to which I am listening with close interest. Perhaps one reason why there are not more Members in this Chamber to hear this debate is that there is a packed Westminster Hall debate taking place on cycling campaign being run by The Times’s. Does that not illustrate the point about the power of Westminster Hall and the importance attached to it by hon. Members?
Mr Bone: I am grateful in one way for that intervention. The only problem is that that was exactly the next paragraph in my speech. Westminster Hall will now be packed with people discussing cycling. That was close to being the lead story in a lot of media outlets this morning, so the suggestion that Westminster Hall is not important from a national point of view is incorrect.
Let me give another, more personal example of how important Westminster Hall is. More than two years ago, the Speaker graciously granted me a Westminster Hall debate to discuss a constituent of mine—a five-year-old
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1087
boy who was suffering from a very nasty cancer called neuroblastoma. Due to red tape, he was not allowed to enter a trial that could have increased his chance of survival from 20% to 70%. To cut a very long—and unfortunately continuing—story short, the excellent Health Minster at the time, Ann Keen, turned up to that debate, listened to the argument and went away and sorted the problem out. That little boy then got treatment on the NHS in Germany. I believe that if it had not been for that Westminster Hall debate, that little boy would not have got that cancer treatment. So, the loss of a Westminster Hall day could be very damaging.
In amendment (a), Monday 19 March is selected as a day for the relevant Westminster Hall sitting. That would be a suitable day because it is close to the day we are losing on Tuesday 20 March. Also, the House will be sitting on that day, so it will not inconvenience Members in any other way. On 26 May 2009, our excellent Prime Minster, who was then simply the leader of the Conservative Party and was about to embark on a very successful election campaign, produced a speech called “Fixing broken politics”. Anyone who does not have it should really get it and have it on their wall. It tells how Parliament is going to be transformed and many of the things in that speech have been done. There are one or two other things that are still to be sorted out, but we are getting there. In that speech, he said:
“The House of Commons should have more control over its own timetable, so there’s time for proper scrutiny and debate.”
That is what we are arguing about tonight. I think the Prime Minster put his point across perfectly and I could not agree with him more. By moving the Westminster Hall sitting, we would be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire by allowing Back Benchers to have a say in the timetable. We would also be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire for more and proper scrutiny of government. As we all know, Westminster Hall is one of the best places to scrutinise the Government on a particular issue. Therefore, if we move the Westminster Hall sitting, rather than cancel it, the House will definitely benefit.
I am fully aware, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, that there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on a Monday, but by being the first Government to have a Monday sitting, we would really show the House and the public that the Executive are determined to be scrutinised and to put Parliament first. That would be an extension of what the Government are already doing and it is quite appropriate and right that it should be called the Heath doctrine. I remember that when the Deputy Leader of the House and I sat on the Opposition side, he had rather similar views to mine. I do not know why, but sometimes when Members move to the other side of the Chamber their priorities and judgment are affected. He could show that that has not happened to him and we could have this wonderful doctrine.
I understand that there is a problem with Mondays because, according to the rules of the House, the debate would have to start at half-past 9 in the morning, which might make it difficult for Members from further away to attend. That is why I also support amendment (b), which would put the lost Westminster Hall day on the Friday when the House is already sitting for the Budget debate. Members would already be here and therefore
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1088
would not be inconvenienced. Of course, all the arguments we have made for not losing the Westminster Hall day apply equally to that Friday. If the Government do not want to accept amendment (a), I think amendment (b) would do the trick and I would be happy for it to be made.
I do not want the Deputy Leader of the House to worry that he would lose the title of Heath days, because there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on Fridays, so that, too, would be a new and good way of putting Parliament first. One of the concerns I have heard is the difficulty of getting Members to turn up on extra days, but of course only the Members interested in the matter being debated need to turn up for Westminster Hall and there are no Divisions, so it is not the case that everyone would have to come along.
I will concentrate on what I think is the main amendment, amendment (c). In essence, it would make Wednesday 29 March the final sitting day before the Easter recess. We have heard the argument that it should be a Wednesday so that we can have Prime Minister’s questions. When the previous Government avoided sitting on a Wednesday, I argued from the Opposition Benches that it is essential that Prime Ministers are scrutinised as often as is practically possible, because the House does not sit for a full year and there are huge gaps, and I still argue that now that I am on the Government Benches. If we have the option of breaking up on either Tuesday or Wednesday, let us make it the Wednesday. If Members want to call that Young time, I am more than happy to agree.
I heard the argument that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made about not having the Prime Minister here. The idea, from an hon. colleague, that the Prime Minister turns up so often because he does not want the Deputy Prime Minister to answer questions—I mean, how far-fetched can she get? When the Deputy Prime Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, he sounds to me like a Tory, and we should hear more of that. Actually, it would be a very good idea for the Prime Minister, even if he was available on the Wednesday, to step aside so that the two deputies could have a go. I think everyone in the House would enjoy that.
I will come now to what I think is the most important and serious part of the debate. It is a slightly complex issue. The Backbench Business Committee, which has been given the Tuesday for Back-Bench business at the end of term, has allocated it for a debate on assisted dying. We have done that because we recognise that assisted dying is an important matter that the whole House should vote on, and on a free vote—I am sure that all parties will have a free vote. We also wanted to give notice of the debate so that Members who are interested could prepare for it. It is not a debate that we can have the following week, as we need time to prepare for it. The usual channels had promised us a date in March so that we could tell people when there would be a debate on assisted dying, but we were not given a date.
We were in a dilemma. How could we give a future date for a debate on assisted dying so that Members could prepare for it? The only date we could possibly give was the end of term, 27 March, but by doing so we had to get rid of the Hollobone day—the pre-recess debate on the new format, in which Ministers come along and answer groups of Back Benchers. Many Back Benchers who do not normally speak in the Chamber
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1089
speak on those days about important constituency matters. So we had to decide, should we have the Hollobone day or the debate about assisted dying? We felt that we had to have the debate about assisted dying, and that was the only way we could schedule it, on a fixed date in March, and give people the notice that they deserve, but we were conscious that we would lose the end-of-term debate, which many people think is important.
So the solution is to make Wednesday the last day of term. It would be a Back-Bench business day, and we could have the pre-recess Adjournment debate then, too. We would have Prime Minister’s questions and then the Adjournment debate, and the advantage is that we would not only get to scrutinise the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister, which any parliamentarian would want, but let Back Benchers raise issues that were important to them, with a Minister or, sometimes on those occasions, a Whip responding to the debate.
That is why on this particular occasion, amendment (c) is very important. The Deputy Leader of the House did not address it in his speech, perhaps because he had not thought or did not know about it, but now that I have explained it I hope that he will accept it. If he does, we will not need to press amendments (a) or (b), because the great advantage of amendment (c) is that it also involves a day on which Westminster Hall sits. There would be none of the problems to which he refers, because it would be a normal sitting day, and the Backbench Business Committee or the Speaker would be able to allocate the debates.
The Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House have done much to improve parliamentary scrutiny; I genuinely mean that. On this occasion, without any detriment whatever to the Government, we can move Parliament forward, so I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to support at least amendment (c).
3.41 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I shall make a short contribution to this debate. In so doing, I very much welcome the Government motion, particularly the part that states
“this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.”
By putting forward the motion, the Government have reinforced the case for the House working a five-day week. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that many years ago we used to work many more Fridays, which were not just the exclusive domain of private Members’ Bills. Indeed, I remember whole-day debates on Fridays about issues such as road safety. If that precedent operated now, instead of the debate about cycling taking place in Westminster Hall as we speak, it could take place on the Floor of the House, in the main Chamber, on a Friday.
By re-establishing the principle that it is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, desirable for the House to work a five-day week, the Government will, I hope, think more in terms of sitting on other Fridays when private Members’ business will not have precedence—Fridays, for example, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when there would not be any votes but when many Members would want to participate, as they will on the Friday during the Budget debate. That important precedent should be welcomed.
Amendment (c) would make the motion even stronger, as sitting on Wednesdays is important, not least because
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1090
we have the chance to hear the Prime Minister responding to questions. Sadly, the contribution by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) from the Opposition Front Bench, was designed almost to turn us off the idea of supporting the amendment. We do not need the amendment to hold the Prime Minister to account; it reminds us of how we got into this situation in the first place.
We used to have the Budget on a Tuesday. It would inevitably unravel—this was a Labour party Budget—during the course of the afternoon, and then the Prime Minister would have to answer for the Chancellor’s failings on the Wednesday. The former Prime Minister Mr Blair decided that that was all far too embarrassing, and moved the Budget to a Wednesday so that he had a whole week before having to answer to the House for the unravelling of his right hon. Friend’s Budget. We cannot go back this year, because Her Majesty is coming to Westminster Hall, but in future years the Budget should go back to a Tuesday, with the opportunity for the Prime Minister then to make telling points about it on the Wednesday.
Notwithstanding the specious justification put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for supporting amendment (c), I shall support it for different and more reasonable reasons.
3.45 pm
Mr Heath: With permission, I will respond briefly to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. First, let me say that I absolutely bask in the approbation of Master Thomas Bone. His views on who are goodies and who are baddies now represent the signal sign of respect across the country, and I am very pleased to know that I am a goodie.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the importance that we as parliamentarians should attach to sittings in Westminster Hall. I regularly hear people speak as though a debate there was a second-class debate, as though it was beneath them even to appear there to speak to a motion that mattered to them, and as though the House was disrespecting the issues that are debated there. Nothing could be further from the truth. Until this House recognises the value of Westminster Hall debates and, indeed, debates that are now held here in time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee rather than in Government time—until we understand the esteem of those occasions—we are doing ourselves a great disservice.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): I would like to add to what the hon. Gentleman has said about Westminster Hall. I have just been over there myself, and an absolutely huge debate is taking place about safe cycling campaign of The Times. In fact, it is virtually standing room only, even for Members who wish to participate. That is a serious debate that demonstrates that Westminster Hall can be a very good place to have important debates.
Mr Heath:
It can indeed, with the one proviso being that the debate must be on a matter that does not need resolution by a Division at the end. Yesterday, I heard an excellent debate, which I sat through in its entirety, on the very sad issue of Kevin Williams and the events in Sheffield those many years ago. It was a superb
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1091
debate, with every contributor making extremely valuable comments, and yet some were also moved to say that it was a shame that it was not taking place in the Chamber and that the Government—despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the Government—had chosen to put it on in Westminster Hall. That is a very unfortunate way of expressing things because it gives the public the idea that matters of huge concern to them are somehow devalued by being debated by parliamentarians in Parliament in a place where, yes, matters are not subject to a decisive vote, but some matters one would not expect to be so.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to the use of the debating time immediately before the recess. He knows that I relish my involvement—others may not—in pre-recess Adjournment debates. I sometimes feel that I have rather more speeches to respond to than I have time available, but that is a different matter. Those debates are clearly valued by Members of the House. I hope it is a tradition that we can largely keep to, but I entirely understand the reasoning that the Backbench Business Committee has applied in this case.
As regards the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I am glad that the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) entered a reservation about having Westminster Hall debates on a Monday morning. Those of us who live a little further away from Westminster would find it rather difficult to get to those comfortably as well as being in our constituencies at the weekend.
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Kettering mentioned what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions earlier and asked me to be powerful in my advocacy of the case. I think the Leader of the House said that I was required to be not powerful but coherent and compelling. It certainly is not for me to decide whether I have been coherent or compelling; the vote will determine that in due course, so let us see.
The thrust of what the hon. Member for Kettering said is that there are huge demands on time in this House. Of course he is right. There has always been great demand for time by Back Benchers who have matters that they wish to debate, and there has never been sufficient time on the supply side to meet that demand. Even if the House were to sit in continuous Session, it would not cope with the demands that are expressed every week at business questions, which are so ably answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I have worked out what it would take to give a proper debate to each of the 51 topics raised in business questions this week. Of course, different topics are raised every week. We would need to more than double the time that we sit in this House each week. Does anyone think that is practical? Does anyone think we could double the time that we sit each week? There probably are some people who think that is practical, but most people understand it is in the interests of Members that they sleep occasionally and in the interests of constituencies that their Members sometimes visit to hear what real people have to say about real things, rather than simply spending their time in the House. I think it would be impossible to meet the demand.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1092
The question is how we can reasonably limit the demand and provide time. If we are going to change our arrangements, we should not make it up as we go along. We need to come to a properly considered view, taking into account all the pros and cons, as we have done previously when we have changed the Standing Orders. I simply do not accept that bringing forward an ad hoc suggestion without the benefit of Standing Orders, in the way that has been suggested, is the right way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that this House should have more control over its own timetable. I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we have given it. However, I do not think it encourages the House to be sensible in the use of its time if we ask it to reverse on 23 February a decision that it made on 21 February—to say on the Thursday the opposite of what it said on Tuesday. I therefore think that we should reject that proposal.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about incompetence. I will point out incompetence: incompetence is the Opposition not being able to tell us until a day before what they will discuss on an Opposition day, when they have had weeks to prepare for it. She said that the reason the previous Prime Minister was so frequently away from Prime Minister’s questions was that he was going around the world saving it. I am not sure that we all recognise that description.
The hon. Lady said that the Leader of the Opposition enjoys Prime Minister’s questions. I can see that he might take some comfort from being surrounded by well-wishers, all desperately hoping that he will do better than the previous week, with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) willing him forward and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) looking at his successor with avuncular charm. All those things might spur the Leader of the Opposition on to another of his relaunches—the man has been relaunched more often than the Padstow lifeboat. However, it is the purpose of the House not to give those opportunities to the Leader of the Opposition, but to ensure that Ministers are held to account. This House sets out its business in a proper—[ Interruption. ] Oh! Isn’t it wonderful? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who had such strong views about this business earlier in the week that he raised a point of order, has arrived one minute before the vote to say something from a sedentary position.
I commend the motion to the House. I ask it not to engage in ad hoc changes to our Standing Orders by accepting the amendments. I hope that we will always ensure that the House has adequate time properly to scrutinise the affairs of Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 75, Noes 240.
[3.54 pm
AYES
Alexander, Heidi
Allen, Mr Graham
Austin, Ian
Bain, Mr William
Baron, Mr John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Bell, Sir Stuart
Blenkinsop, Tom
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brown, Lyn
Bryant, Chris
Campbell, Mr Alan
Chope, Mr Christopher
Connarty, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creasy, Stella
Cunningham, Tony
Davies, Philip
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Evans, Chris
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fovargue, Yvonne
Gapes, Mike
Gilmore, Sheila
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Henderson, Gordon
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Jamieson, Cathy
Jones, Susan Elan
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malhotra, Seema
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonnell, John
Michael, rh Alun
Mills, Nigel
Nuttall, Mr David
Onwurah, Chi
Paisley, Ian
Pearce, Teresa
Pound, Stephen
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Spellar, rh Mr John
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turner, Mr Andrew
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Weir, Mr Mike
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Philip Hollobone and
Mr Peter Bone
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Byles, Dan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Clappison, Mr James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Field, Mark
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Newton, Sarah
Norman, Jesse
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Raab, Mr Dominic
Reckless, Mark
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Brooks Newmark and
Jenny Willott
Question accordingly negatived.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1093
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1094
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1095
Amendment proposed: (c), at end add—
‘and, notwithstanding the decision of the House of 21 February, on Wednesday 28 March.’—(Mr Hollobone .)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 79, Noes 240.
[4.7 pm
AYES
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bain, Mr William
Baron, Mr John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Bell, Sir Stuart
Betts, Mr Clive
Binley, Mr Brian
Blenkinsop, Tom
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brown, Lyn
Bryant, Chris
Campbell, Mr Alan
Chope, Mr Christopher
Connarty, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creasy, Stella
Cunningham, Tony
Davies, Philip
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Evans, Chris
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fovargue, Yvonne
Gapes, Mike
Gilmore, Sheila
Greatrex, Tom
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Henderson, Gordon
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Jamieson, Cathy
Jones, Susan Elan
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Main, Mrs Anne
Malhotra, Seema
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonnell, John
Michael, rh Alun
Onwurah, Chi
Paisley, Ian
Pearce, Teresa
Pound, Stephen
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reckless, Mark
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Spellar, rh Mr John
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turner, Mr Andrew
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Weir, Mr Mike
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Philip Hollobone and
Mr Peter Bone
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Byles, Dan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Clappison, Mr James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Field, Mark
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Leslie, Charlotte
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Newton, Sarah
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Raab, Mr Dominic
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Rutley, David
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Brooks Newmark and
Jenny Willott
Question accordingly negatived.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1096
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1097
Main Question put and agreed to .
That—
(1) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March; and
(2) this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1098
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
4.18 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath): I beg to move,
That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 6 and 13 July, 7 and 14 September, 19 and 26 October and 2, 9 and 30 November 2012 and 18 and 25 January, 1 February and 1 March 2013.
Apparently I was coherent and compelling in the previous debate, as we won the vote; let us hope that I am as lucky this time. The motion gives precedence to private Members’ Bills over Government business on the Fridays set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the business statement on 9 February. I do not intend to detain the House for too long on this issue. Standing Orders set out that there should be 13 such Fridays per Session. Members are aware of the dates set aside in the next Session, and I have received no representations about the unsuitability of any of them.
I am aware that some thought is being given to the timing and process of the private Members’ Bill system by the Procedure Committee. It is, however, quite right that we should proceed on the basis of the present position until we have received alternative proposals from the Committee and the House has decided whether to agree to them. The House might be able to have that wider debate at a future date, but today’s motion is simply to give effect to the dates as provided for in the Standing Orders. No amendments to the motion have been tabled, so it is a simple choice: does the House want 13 Fridays devoted to private Members’ Bills or not?
4.20 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this matter, as the Government were intent on putting it through without debate. The Deputy Leader of the House has just said he regards this motion as provisional, which rather concerns me. I was hoping to congratulate the Government on having endorsed the principle that the traditional 13 Friday sittings for private Members’ Bills would have precedence in the next Session. The hon. Gentleman has told us that that is what he is doing, but that it could be subject to change later on. When he responds to this short debate, I hope he can assure us that if there is any recommendation for change, it would apply only to subsequent Sessions rather than to the next Session, whose Fridays have been allocated for private Members’ business in the motion.
It is important that we have had this much notice of the allotted Fridays, which should enable greater attendance than has been evident on some Fridays in this past long Session. The minimum notice given by the Deputy Leader of the House is five months and the maximum is more than 12 months. It should be possible for Members of all parties to arrange their diaries to make their constituency business subordinate to the business in the Chamber of the House of Commons on these Fridays. As I say, this debate provides an opportunity to remind colleagues of the importance of putting these dates in
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1099
their dairies. Then, if they have been successful in the private Members’ ballot, they can avoid being embarrassed because they have committed themselves to some other activity on one of the key Fridays.
That said, I hope that the Government can be deemed to have endorsed the principle that they support Friday sittings, and the previous debate showed that they believe in in principle. I hope that these Friday sittings will definitely happen during the next Session and that this motion is not in any way provisional.
4.23 pm
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I am grateful to speak in this short debate. I would like to congratulate the Government on putting down so early the days allotted for private Members, so that we can put them in our diaries and be pretty sure that the debates are going to happen on those dates. I accept, of course, that they are provisional, but this is a very good guide.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why, if the Government can do that, they cannot allocate the 25 Backbench Business Committee days in the same manner in advance, which would be most useful to us? I entirely agree with the opening comments of the Deputy Leader of the House: he was very coherent and persuasive in the earlier debate, albeit in arguing a case that was completely hopeless. On reflection on the figures, he might realise that the number of Members voting for the motion was less than half. In fact, there were massive abstentions, which most people would regard as a warning shot or perhaps as a defeat for the Government.
4.24 pm
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I welcome the publication of the suggested 13 sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills, but I must add that I think it discourteous to the House for the Government to publish the calendar and circulate it widely before a motion has been passed on the Floor of the House. I understand that the calendar was published several weeks before today’s debate and, ultimately, the decision.
The timing of some of the Fridays is different from that in previous years. For example, I think that this is the first occasion on which both Fridays during the September sitting have been devoted to private Members’ Bills, and I should be interested to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House why those two dates have been chosen. I am not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but presumably there is at least a modicum of reasoning behind it, and I should like to know what that reasoning is.
I should also like the Deputy Leader to reassure me that the Government have no intention of doing in the next Session what they did in the present Session, when they blocked the progress of at least two private Members’ Bills by failing to move in a timely manner the money motion attached to them. I refer, of course, to the Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and the Daylight Saving Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). The latter attracted huge support from Members on both sides of the House, and more progress would
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1100
have been made on it—indeed, it could well have completed its passage through the House—had the Government not delayed the moving of its money motion by nine months.
I hope that, in seeking the House’s approval of the proposed dates, the Deputy Leader of the House will place on record his intention of ensuring that the timetable is realistic, and that the Government will not try to muck about with money motions as they have done during the current Session.
4.26 pm
Mr Heath: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This has been a wonderful opportunity for a short debate about the dates of private Members’ Bills. We are always happy to have a debate when the House demands one. Equally, we are always happy for there not to be a debate when the House agrees to something without objection. That always strikes me as a sensible use of time in the House, which, as we have already heard in previous debates, is at a premium.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for making clear the value of being given the earliest possible notice of dates when they are available to us. We always try to accommodate the House as best we can by providing early notice, and that goes for the printed calendar as well. That too is provisional, but it helps Members to identify how the timetable fits in with their personal and political arrangements. They can then notify us if there are difficulties, although on this occasion no one has mentioned any problems with the dates that have been allocated.
This is provisional in the sense that any decision by the House can be rescinded by the House. Not so long ago, the House was invited to rescind a motion that it had passed only two days earlier. I cannot say whether at any time in the next year the House may wish to rescind the dates that it has chosen for private Members’ Bills, but I hope that it will not do so, because it makes sense for us to be able to plan.
We are also in the hands of the Select Committees, including the Procedure Committee, which examines the proposals for private Members’ Bills. I have no idea what the Committee will say, and it would be improper if I did. If it produces recommendations and they are put to the House, the Government will of course respond, and the House will determine whether there is to be a change. Again, that would not be a matter for me, as a Minister, to determine.
As for the question of whether adequate time is provided by the procedures governing private Members’ Bills, we are bound by a Standing Order of the House, but within what that Standing Order sets out, we try to provide the days that seem to us to be most suitable. The Fridays in September have been included because it has been suggested that it would be helpful for Back Benchers to be able to make progress with their legislation then, but if the House were to recommend otherwise, we would obviously pay attention to that view.
The arrangements for money resolutions and the like are normally determined on a Bill-by-Bill basis with both the Member responsible for the Bill and the Minister who would have an interest in it. There is not a Government
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1101
position on that. That often involves complex negotiation, because we all want good private Members’ legislation that the House can support where appropriate, while also ensuring proper scrutiny. That is our intention, and the intention of the House.
Mr Bone: Will the Deputy Leader of the House address the issue of why we can publish the private Member’s days but we cannot publish the Backbench business days?
Mr Heath: The answer to that is simple. Private Member’s Bills are dealt with on Fridays so they do not compete for time with Government legislation. As we know, Government legislation does not always run in a straight trajectory, not least because we are dealing with two Houses of Parliament, and there are therefore variables. We do not want to give people a firm calendar on which they then make their arrangements only for them subsequently to find that it has been changed at late notice.
The hon. Gentleman has a point in respect of whether the Backbench Business Committee, the Government and others who have an interest should consider whether there might be a way of accommodating fixed-point debates, as it were, on matters that there is a relevant time to discuss. We should address that question in the context of the review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee.
Sadly, we are not yet at a point where we can decide with certainty and long in advance which day in the legislative week will be given over to what activity of the House, because there are too many imponderables. As a Government business manager, I would love to know well in advance the position in respect of every Bill before the House, but I listen to what both Houses say and respond accordingly. We all must accept that that means that there will be uncertainties in the future programme. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 6 and 13 July, 7 and 14 September, 19 and 26 October and 2, 9 and 30 November 2012 and 18 and 25 January, 1 February and 1 March 2013.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1102
Ricky Burlton
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)
4.32 pm
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): I am pleased to have secured this important debate to raise the tragic death of my constituent, Ricky Burlton, and to highlight significant flaws in the current process, under which unqualified drivers are able to procure motor insurance and vehicle excise duty, which in this case played a significant part in Ricky’s tragic death. Aged only 20 when he was killed, Ricky was struck by a car on the A10 southbound exit near Hoddesdon on 4 June 2010. It is believed that an Albanian national, known as Georgios Tsoulos, who had been living in the UK illegally under a false Greek identity, was behind the wheel of the car that hit and killed Ricky.
Following the incident, Mr Tsoulos was transferred to hospital to receive treatment for injuries he sustained to his face. While awaiting a further transfer to Moorfields eye hospital, he absconded and has not been seen since. He is still wanted for questioning, of course.
Ricky’s parents, Dawn and Mark, are in the Gallery. Although they know that nothing will bring Ricky back into their lives, they came to see me to highlight how an uninsured, unqualified driver with a false identity was able to drive a taxed and insured car. They wished to draw attention to the probable scale of the problem and, more poignantly, to help prevent others from experiencing such tragic events. I pay tribute to Ricky’s parents for their determination to prevent other parents from having to go through what they have been through.
The chain of events that led to Georgios Tsoulos driving the car that is suspected of killing Ricky is, sadly, straightforward, so let me recall the narrative briefly. Having established an address, Georgios Tsoulos was able to purchase motor insurance, probably doing so online. Although his lack of a valid driving licence would have invalidated his insurance policy in the event of an accident, he was still able to procure it legally, as people can. It is not illegal to purchase car insurance without having a valid driving licence, even though most insurance companies I have spoken to have told me that they would not choose to insure an individual who did not have a driving licence.
This debate invites the Minister to become aware of this situation and, where possible, to answer the following questions: why would and why can someone without a licence, particularly someone using an illegal identity, gain insurance that enables him to drive a car with a very reduced chance of being apprehended? What is the scale of the problem? What steps could we take to mitigate this behaviour?
Why would an individual who had no legal right to be in the UK and no valid UK driving licence wish to purchase motor insurance, which would of course become invalid in the event of an accident or a collision? The answer is obvious: it is so that he can use the insurance to obtain road tax, with the combination of those two things minimising the likelihood of him being picked up by an automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—camera. This gives an unqualified and potentially dangerous individual the ability to drive unchecked and unstopped.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1103
We encountered a few problems when we tried to look into how many people are driving without motor insurance. In respect of those driving with a false identity and without motor insurance, we are trying to establish and prove a negative, which is always difficult. We had previously written to ask the Department for Transport whether it kept figures on this. It does not, of course, but the Department referred me to a quote from the Motor Insurers Bureau stating that 23,000 people are injured and 160 killed every year by uninsured drivers.
It is not unreasonable to assume that a fair proportion of these people are driving taxed cars as a result of gaining—albeit invalid—insurance, and thereby avoiding early detection. We have no idea, of course, how many people are driving on a false identity, but it is reasonable to assume that a significant number are doing so. Those figures fundamentally suggest that the size and scale of insurance fraud-related injuries and deaths caused by unqualified drivers is significant.
Insurance companies are not unaware of this problem. They are aware that people are using insurance policies to conceal their lack of licence and, thus, their illegal driving. The Association of British Insurers has told me that identify fraud, especially the growing use of fraudulent driving licence details, is a huge concern for the industry. The insurance companies have highlighted the fact that they have processes to try to deal with this issue. They will assume that a contract is entered into in good faith, but where they have doubts they will often, in order to reduce the level of policies taken out using fraudulent information, present photocopies of driving licences to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and pay a fee to establish whether there are any doubts about validity.
The number of insurance companies conducting these checks, however, still seems relatively small. For example, in 2010 more than 210,000 applications were made by insurance companies to access the DVLA database to check an individual’s driving licence status, compared with total sales of 24 million new policies each year. I hasten to add that the vast majority of those policies will be for re-insurance, but even if less than 5% were first-time policies, checks are still proportionately small, leaving more scope for fraud and illegal driving to go unchecked.
The circumstances that I have outlined conspire to make it all too easy for illegal and irresponsible drivers to take to the road, and that is not helped by the lenient punishments when individuals are prosecuted for motoring-related offences in this category. Figures released to me by the DVLA show that as of 26 September 2011, nearly 240,000 individuals on its database were classed as non-licence holders who had committed and been convicted of driving-related offences. That includes a staggering 1,218 people who have been convicted of 10 or more such driving offences without having a valid licence. I note that one individual is registered as having 31 driving convictions for not having a licence. It seems to me inherently wrong that we cannot prevent such people from reoffending at such levels.
Such individuals are aided by their ability still to purchase motor insurance policies without having their driving licence status checked. How can we seek to ease the problem of individuals fraudulently purchasing car insurance by claiming to have a full and valid UK
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1104
driving licence? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but the answer could be very simple. We could, I anticipate, grant insurance companies real-time access to the DVLA database to allow them to validate an individual’s driving licence status, when considered appropriate, and require new policy holders to submit their details on their application, which is not yet required. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that some work had been undertaken between the DVLA and insurance companies to seek such a solution, but it appears that there might be some resistance from the DVLA. I would welcome any clarity that the Minister provided either during the debate or afterwards.
It appears that from 2009 until August 2011 more than £840,000 has been spent by the DVLA on something known internally as the industry access to driver data project. I am told that the intention of the project is to allow prospective insurers access to an individual’s driving entitlement and their current endorsement history, but it would also allow us to extend that benefit to rooting out possibly fraudulent applications. Although having already spent close to £1 million, the DVLA has been unable to confirm if and when such a system will be in operation. I am sure that cost-benefit analyses and discussions are under way with the insurance companies, but after such a long time it would be useful to know whether it is anticipated that the plans will be developed any further.
As I draw to a conclusion—I thank the House for its patience—it is important that we remember the human impact of all this. Those driving without the skill, ability or right to do so, who either hide under a false alias or take out motor insurance so that they can obtain vehicle excise duty to minimise their chances of detection, are a serious threat to citizens anywhere in this country. Our citizens could be run down at any time as a result of a deliberate attempt by a person to take a car on the road when unqualified to do so, which results in that person being a dangerous driver.
Ricky Burlton paid a heavy price for that and his family continue to pay that heavy price. The loophole that allows individuals to purchase insurance without a driving licence and go on to tax their vehicles is creating the ability for dangerous, unlicensed drivers to drive freely across the UK. I hope that as a result of this debate, the wishes of Ricky’s parents that this matter is taken forward, and that their campaign and concern are registered, are fulfilled. I hope also that we might make some progress in clamping down on this very dangerous loophole. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
4.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning):
It is an honour and a privilege and quite humbling to be the Minister responding to this Adjournment debate, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is a good friend. As a father, I can only imagine the pain and suffering that Ricky’s family have gone through. I know they are here in the Gallery today, and I hope that some of my comments and those of my hon. Friend will help to bring them some comfort. I commend them for their dedication to the campaign they have been working on for some time with my hon. Friend and others on how we can close this loophole. I hope also that they and anyone else watching the debate
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1105
will understand that Adjournment debates are usually a very personal affair between a Member of Parliament and a Minister. The fact that there are very few Members here in no way reflects how seriously the House or the Government take the issue. Indeed, there are more here than there usually are and that is because of the seriousness of the debate.
For me, this issue came to light many years ago, long before I came to the House, when I was a fireman in Essex. All too often, we would attend an incident and the police would whisper to us, “Another uninsured driver,” or “Another one with no licence.” One thing I was determined about when the Prime Minister gave me the honour of being the roads Minister was that I would look really carefully at the skills that drivers need to ensure their safety and that of others. I also wanted to look carefully at the whole area of car insurance, which we should remember is compulsory. Unlike many other types of insurance, which we can choose to take out, many of the things that are required by legislation when one drives a car are there because the state says that drivers have to have them. I was very conscious that we should look at the driving test, at the MOT, a review of which we announced in the House in the past couple of days, and at insurance. Why is it so expensive? Why have there been so many uninsured drivers out there? Why is fraud so easy at times? Why are people being allowed to do that and injure and kill other people while also pushing up the cost of insurance through their actions?
I commend the previous Administration because they started the process of change by bringing in things like the continuous insurance legislation that says that if someone owns a vehicle for which a statutory off road notification has not been made it must be insured, no matter where it is. It might be in someone’s garage or in their friend’s yard but if the owner has not made a SORN, they must have an intention to drive it. That change started to deal with the 1.2 million vehicles on our roads that are not insured. However, it did not address the issue of those who are fraudulently driving a vehicle or taking out insurance.
One group whom we have not discussed yet are those who commit fraud almost unintentionally, such as parents who say, “It’s so expensive for Johnny or Mary to insure their car; I’ll insure it for them and say that I’m the main driver and that they are an additional driver”, when in fact they are not. That is also fraud and when insurers realise that that is the case they cancel the insurance when someone tries to make a claim. That is a big issue and that boosts up costs.
This issue is fascinating to me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is right that it is quite simple to address. The DVLA holds the details of anyone in this country who holds a British driving licence, so it should not be rocket science to say that if an overseas national or anyone without a British driving licence tries to get insurance and road tax, as my hon. Friend has described, to make it more difficult for the authorities to realise that they are driving illegally, surely those two parties—the DVLA and insurers—should be able to talk to each other, whether through the Motor Insurers Bureau or the Association of British Insurers. I asked that question very early on and was told, “It’s quite difficult, Minister. Let’s get the continuous insurance legislation out of the way first.” The Government
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1106
had committed to doing that and the legislation is now on the statute book, and that has been a great asset in driving uninsured drivers off the road, but it is also a great asset to insurance companies and their profits, as we can imagine.
However, as my hon. Friend suggested, the DVLA had already spent a great deal of money trying to give this porthole facility to the insurers. Some 18 months ago I made a speech to the insurers and said, “We will give you this facility. It is expensive, so we will need some financial help from you as well, because you will get a tangible benefit from this, along with all of us.” There have been some difficulties with those negotiations in recent months, which I think is what my hon. Friend alluded to in his earlier comments. However, I am absolutely determined that this will happen.
Some people—the politically correct, in my view—have suggested that giving that information to insurers would be wrong because it would infringe data protection and the individual’s rights. I think the opposite. If someone is asking to be insured, which is a legal requirement for being on the road, they should supply all the relevant information to the insurer so that it can make a judgment on whether it wishes to insure the individual, because there are plenty of people out there who insurers would not want to insure—my hon. Friend alluded to some of them in his comments. The insurers could then make a judgment on the cost of the premium.
Of course, insurance is all about risk. Around 50% of all insurance claims are personal injury claims, which is something else we are working on. In this area, I was told that we should be okay, but I said, “Let us look at it another way.” If a broker or someone who is looking for insurance online is unwilling to reveal that information to the insurance company, that is fine and they should not tick the relevant box, but I am pretty sure that the insurance company will not insure them, because they have something to hide. I think that we have gone over that issue now; there are still some concerns on how quickly we can get that facility, but I am absolutely determined to do so.
Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister for his thought-out response to the questions I raised. I think that we could also give some financial encouragement to insurance companies. At present, if a vehicle is uninsured, insurers have to run a fund that means that they meet third party liability costs, which is a growing cost to the industry, so I would have thought that they should factor that into their calculations.
Mike Penning: My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to say that the feasibility of this proposal is not just about the necessity of driving people who have done awful and terrible things, such as those done to Ricky, off the road, but about helping us all financially. We all know about the sheer cost of insurance; we have seen the publicity in the newspapers in the past few years. A lot of that is the result of uninsured risk. We need to ensure that insurers—in my negotiations and discussions with them I have reiterated this, because DVLA is my responsibility as Minister—do not go down blind avenues by saying, “This will cost us X, so what benefit will we get from it?” There is obviously a tangible benefit—one of the benefits my hon. Friend alluded to—but there are others, and it is not just in this sort of case that we would benefit.
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1107
When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech I noted very carefully that this was about people reinsuring. There is a big problem with drivers not telling their insurers when they are handed fines and points by the courts. They should tell them immediately, and the insurers should certainly be informed when they do their renewals. I think the insurance companies need to do more than simply ask, “Have your circumstances changed?”
Only the other day, my insurance company texted me to tell me that my insurance was due for renewal. The text told me how much it was—it had gone up, as usual—and that the insurance company will take it out of my bank account at the end of the month and I do not need to do anything. That is very dangerous. It is convenient, both for me and, obviously, for my insurer, but there is no transparency for me, as the person being insured, on whether there have been any changes in my circumstances. I know that the small print on all policies says that we should inform the insurer, but the process should be much more difficult—just for that spare moment—so that we are able to gather the information and know exactly what is going on. It is in many ways just as bad as a parent insuring themselves for their child, but it is certainly not as bad as the case under discussion, because, as my hon. Friend suggests, such behaviour often occurs for a reason.
People who do not have a driving licence take out insurance not because they think, “This is protecting the public or someone else”; they do so to cover up something. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if you go out on patrol with the police, you see that the modern technology in ANPR cameras is absolutely stunning. The police know whether the driver has an MOT, is insured or is the registered owner. All those things flash up in an instant, and the technology is being rolled out,
23 Feb 2012 : Column 1108
but it will not pick up whether the driver has a licence, even though it will bring up whether they are insured.
There is another little problem, which my hon. Friend touched on, and it is to do with the new legislation on continuous insurance, because, as he quite rightly asked, if a driver does not have a licence why would they insure the vehicle? The answer is that it may be off the road, and although the driver might not want to SORN it, they might want to insure it so that if, for instance, their garage caught light and was not covered by their house insurance, the vehicle, which might be a classic or something like that, would be protected. So we must not put into the box marked “criminality” people who do not deserve to be, because there may be a genuine reason for their behaviour. But that is a small element and no excuse not to progress.
As we move forward, as we use the technology that we have, as insurers see how they can gain the financial benefits and as consumers see the benefits, we as a Government have to enforce the legislation, which is on the statute book for a reason. It is on the statute book so that everybody knows what will happen if they are hit by someone else or injured by a vehicle.
There is, as my hon. Friend said, a substantial cost from claims due to uninsured third parties, and it is something that we are going to drive down with the current legislation, but I hope that literally in the next few months we will come to an agreement with the insurers and their representative bodies. There is the will to do so, and where there is a will there is a way. It is something that I am determined to drive forward not only for Ricky’s parents, but for all others on the road, whether the issue is a financial one or involves those who have lost their loved ones, too.