114 Tory MPs vote for the Baron amendment

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

130 MPs voted in favour of John Baron's amendment expressing regret at the absence of an EU Referendum Bill in the Queen's speech. 277 voted against.

Peter Bone, who was a teller for those supporting the amendment, has confirmed that 114 of the 130 were Tory MPs. That exceeds the 100 that Philip Hollobone was anticipating, and it far exceeds the 60 or so that some in Government were talking about. There were also 12 Labour MPs, 4 DUP and one Lib Dem.

Although it's not strictly a rebellion – thanks to the oddities listed by Andrew Sparrow here – it's still rather embarrassing for David Cameron. It seems that the draft EU Referendum Bill rushed out yesterday did very little to sway hearts and ayes. Many of his MPs don't think he's doing enough to reassure the public of his intentions.

And the whipping operation? According to Zac Goldsmith, this was a truly free vote with "no pressure from the Whips", so may help absolve them. But it doesn't shake the fact that Team Cameron won't be thrilled with tonight's outcome – or, more exactly, with this whole farrago in the first place.

Anyway, here's the list of the 114 Tory MPs who supported the amendment:

Continue reading "114 Tory MPs vote for the Baron amendment" »

Summary of Bills included in the Queen's Speech

The Queen's Speech this morning included the following Bills to be introduced in this Session of Parliament:

• Office for Budget Responsibility Bill - to set up the Office for Budget Responsibility.
• National Insurance Contributions Bill - to amend rates of National Insurance Contributions.
• Welfare Reform Bill - to make the benefits system simpler and improve work incentives.
• Pensions and Savings Bill - to introduce a revised timetable for increasing the State Pension age.
• Financial Reform Bill - to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.
• Equitable Life Bill - to provide for payments to Equitable Life policy holders.
• Airport Economic Regulation Bill - to reform the framework for the economic regulation of airports to benefit passengers and drive investment in airport facilities.
• Postal Services Bill - to enable an injection of private capital in the Royal Mail.
• Energy Bill - to deliver a national programme of energy efficiency measures and promote low carbon energy production.
• Academies Bill - to enable more schools to achieve academy status and give teachers greater freedoms over the curriculum.
• Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - to provide for directly elected individuals to hold the police to account, create a dedicated Border Police Force and introduce stronger powers to tackle anti-social behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence
• Public Bodies (Reform) Bill - to cut the number of public bodies and allow for the abolition or merger of existing quangos
• Decentralisation and Localism Bill - to give more power to councils and neighbourhoods through, among other measures, abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies, returning decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils, abolishing the Standards Board regime, requiring the salaries of senior official to be pubished online, allowing local residents the power to instigate referendums on any local issues or council tax rises and abolishing Home Information Packs.
• Local Government Bill - to stop the restructuring of local government in Exeter, Norwich and Suffolk.
• Parliamentary Reform Bill - to provide for a referendum on changing the electoral system, to reduce the number of parliamentary seats (and equalise their size), to provide for fixed term parliaments, to intorduce the "55% rule" for dissolving parliament and to allow for the recall ballots if an MP is found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
• Draft Parliamentary Privilege Bill - to clarify the extent and scope of parliamentary privilege
• Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill - to restore freedoms and civil liberties through restricting the scope of the DNA database, restoring rights to non-violent protest, introducing safeguards agasint the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, regulating the use of CCTV and ending the storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• Identity Documents Bill - to abolish identity cards and the National Identity Register.
• Scotland Bill - to implement the recommendations of the Calman Commission
• European Union Bill - to ensure that any future transfer of power to the EU would be subject to a referendum and that primary legisaltion would be required for use of ratchet clauses, and to ratify a Protocol to adjust the numbr of MEPs in the UK and 11 other EU countries.
• Armed Forces Bill - to provide the legal basis for the Armed Forces and change Court Martial powers.
• Terrorist Asset-freezing Bill - to put the UK's terrist asset-freezing regime on a secure legislative footing.

Other key non-legislative items mentioned in the Queen's Speech:

• A commitment that the Government's first priority is to "reduce the deficit and restore economic growth" not least through an emergency budget on June 22nd.
• The tax and benefits system to be made "fairer and simpler" with the personal income tax allowance to be increased and pensions to be linked to earnings from April 2011.
• Enabling the construction of a high speed railway network.
• The introduction of a limit on non EU immigration and the ending of detention of children for immigration purposes.
• Removing barriers to flexible working and promoting equal pay.
• Giving doctors and patients more power in the NHS and taking action to improve public health.
• Establishment of a Commission on Long-Term Care.
• Giving social enterprises, charities and co-opertives an enhanced role in running public services.
• Establishment of a committee to make recommendation on House of Lords reform.
• The pursuance of an agreement on limiting political donations.
• Working towards an ambitious global deal on tackling climate change.
• A full Strategic Defence and Security Review.
• A commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development aid from 2013.
  

Jonathan Isaby

A sign of how (dis)(un)interested Labour MPs are in the Queen's Speech

5pm update: A Conservative MP calls to tell me that one of his astounded colleagues counted the number of Labour MPs present as just 127 out of 350.

---

Below is a screen grab of the Labour benches at the opening of business this afternoon, for the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Usually the chamber is packed and with standing room only for this occasion; but look at all the empty places on the Labour benches... they've given up the ghost already.

From 3pm or thereabouts I will be live-blogging David Cameron's response to the speech.

Jonathan Isaby

Was that it? A quick summary of the Queen' Speech

Here is a quick run down of the aims of the Government Bills the Queen has just announced for the new session of Parliament:

• To enhance governance of the financial sector
• To put halving the budget deficit into legislation
• To widen the provision of free personal care for those in highest need
• To legislate guarantees for pupils and parents to raise educational standards
• To protect communities by making parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour
• To amend the communications infrastructure to make it fit for the digital age
• To support carbon capture and storage and help vulnerable households with energy bills
• To protect communities from flooding and protect water supplies
• To address the differences in pay between men and women
• To ensure agency workers are treated equally
• To take forward constitutional reform
• To strengthen the law against bribery
• To ban cluster munitions

She also announced two draft bills:

• To reform the House of Lords and make it substantially or wholly elected
• To legislate to make binding the commitment for 0.7% of government spending from 2013 to be on International Development

ITN's three minute guide to the traditions behind the State Opening of Parliament

George Osborne and Chris Grayling slate the Government's economic and welfare plans

Yesterday the Conservatives led a debate on the economic, pensions and welfare portions of the Queen's Speech.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne kicked things off. The Tory amendment indicated humble regret that:

"the Gracious Speech fails to deliver a clear direction for British economic policy, does not contain measures to assist in building a low debt and low tax economy, and lacks any radical action to unblock the credit channels of our banking system; note that many individuals have seen returns on their savings severely reduced as a result of the economic downturn and regret that the Government has no plans for emergency protection of pensioners with a suspension of annuity rules; further regret the absence of a clear strategy on value added tax; and further regret the absence of measures to avoid the United Kingdom undergoing the worst recession in the G7 next year.”.

Mr Osborne then turned the screw:

"What has been the judgment in the last week alone on the Chancellor’s claim? The pound has fallen against the euro, hitting a record low earlier today and demonstrating again the Prime Minister’s maxim that a weak currency is a reflection of a weak economy and a weak Government. The loss of international credibility has sent the cost of insuring British Government debt higher than insuring the debt of those two homes of French fries, Belgium and McDonalds. An independent survey out today says that the drop in the VAT rate seems to have made little difference in lifting consumer confidence and encouraging consumers to spend. The head of Barclays bank says that despite the measures announced by the Government over the past few weeks, such as those on stamp duty, house prices will fall by at least as much next year as they have this year.

This lunchtime, the Minister for the Olympics has contradicted every statement made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor over the past six months by admitting, in her words, that Britain is facing a recession

“deeper than any that we have known”.

So, what about all that talk about the 1980s and 1990s now? The Finance Minister of the world’s third largest economy has described the Government’s approach as “crass” and “breathtaking” and raising debt to a level that will take “a whole generation” to pay off. That is the problem with saving the world—sometimes the world answers back."

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Chris Grayling wound up the debate for the Conservatives.

Continue reading "George Osborne and Chris Grayling slate the Government's economic and welfare plans" »

Peer of the Day - the Bishop of Bath of Wells for calling for an end to poverty

The House of Lords also debated the Queen's Speech yesterday.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells is one of the Lords Spiritual and so does not have a party affiliation. Nonetheless he made a highly entertaining and thought-provoking maiden speech that ConservativeHome readers shouldn't miss.

(There are some uncharacteristic typos in the Hansard report. These have been left in so as not to alter the text in any way.)

Readers will note that the Bishop was very funny, but also muscular in his insistence that we must address poverty. Conservatives may differ from him on the means, but it is encouraging to see a clergyman being both forthright and accessible.

"My Lords, I begin by expressing my thanks to Members of the House for their kind and generous welcome. I also thank all the officials, and staff for their courtesy and unfailing helpfulness to me and my family, particularly on the day of my introduction.

In the aftermath of the “Blackadder”television series, there are always perils for the bishops of Bath and Wells. I am constantly reminded of the alleged activities of one of my predecessors as a baby eater, as well as doing unmentionable things with a red hot poker. Entering your Lordships’ House has proved no exception, and the greeting from the Doorkeeper on my first day referring to these matters was capped only by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark seeing my five week-old granddaughter arrive and remarking, “The Bishop has brought his own lunch”.

I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in today’s debate on the gracious Speech. Having been a director of one of the church’s mission and development agencies for six years, I am particularly concerned to encourage the Government on matters to do with international development outlined in the Queen’s Speech.

The Jubilee 2000 debtcampaignraised to popular awareness the issue of debt in the poorest of the world’s developing countries. This in turn led to Make Poverty History, a campaign that creates awareness of the ongoing issue of poverty, as well as raising the profile of the millennium development goals, a subject on which the Prime Ministeraddressed the bishops of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference.

We live in a world, to quote the words of the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, where:

“We cannot feast while others starve, we cannot be happy while others are sad, we cannot be fully at ease while millions suffer”.

As long as millions of people are in poverty in our world, our whole society is impoverished.The recent view of the world presented by the National Intelligence Councilisthat 63 per cent of the world’s population is expected to be poor in 2025—fewer people than today—but that the poor will be poorer. That emphasises the urgency of the challenge to meet the millennium development goals.

Continue reading "Peer of the Day - the Bishop of Bath of Wells for calling for an end to poverty" »

Debate continues on the Queen's Speech

Yesterday saw the second day of debate on the Gracious Speech. The Home Secretary was in action again straight after fielding questions about Damian Green.

Unfortunately, very few MPs were present for much of what went on.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve, who is on fire at the moment, spoke very persuasively.

"On the substance of what the Home Secretary had to say, although I can welcome some aspects of her speech, there are many others that I cannot, because the Government’s record on home affairs and justice is not a happy one and is at variance with the aspirations set out in the Queen’s Speech.

The Government have presided over the virtual doubling of violent crime since they were elected, while their incessant red tape and regulation have tied the hands of the police. Indeed, some announcements that are now being made on the subject are merely rolling back red tape and bureaucracy that the Government previously introduced.

...

The thirst for headlines and the inflation of ineffective bureaucracy and legislative hyperactivity distract the Government and successive Home Secretaries from the real job at hand: getting more police on the street with the single imperative of cutting crime, and a dedicated border police force to reverse our current vulnerability, which has seen the street value of cocaine and heroin slashed by almost half, while estimates show that the numbers of young women and girls trafficked into prostitution have quadrupled."

Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Nick Herbert wound up for the Tories, and also spoke with great verve.

"Yesterday we saw the Lord Chancellor, in all his finery, skilfully walking backwards, which he did most expertly. That was entirely appropriate, because retreat has been the story of the Prime Minister’s programme on constitutional renewal.

Back in July last year, when the new Prime Minister made his first statement to the House, he promised a

“national debate...founded on the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy.”—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 819.]

Constitutional change was not peripheral to the Government’s agenda; it was central to their programme—“founded on...conviction”. That conviction cannot have been very profound, because just 18 months later, the constitutional agenda has all but disappeared. It has become clear that the Prime Minister had no great vision of a new settlement, just the immediate political challenge of dissociating himself from his predecessor."

Good stuff from the Conservatives - but why were so few MPs present?

Conservative MPs respond to the Queen's Speech

Yesterday the House of Commons debated the Queen's Speech. Herewith some extracts of contributions from Conservative members.

David Cameron was on very good form. He was funny, and coped ably with questions about Damian Green before turning his fire on the Government:

"Let me tell the Prime Minister what is wrong with this Queen’s Speech. There is no recognition in the Government’s programme of how the world has changed. We are moving into an age in which there is no Government money left, so we need public sector reform to get better value for money. We are moving into an age of massive debt, so we need to mend the broken society and reduce the demands on the state. But in the Queen’s Speech there is no serious reform, just bureaucratic bungling and technocratic tinkering. It is all about the short-term prospects of the Prime Minister, not the long-term future of the country. It is last year’s Queen’s Speech from yesterday’s Prime Minister.

There is no change. Let us look at the promises that the Prime Minister made when he said—remember the phrase?—

“Let the work of change begin.”

Let us examine them. We were told that there would be loads of eco towns, but only one is still alive. He promised zero-carbon homes, but there have been virtually zero of them. There are just 15 in the whole country. He promised 3 million new homes, but house building fell by a quarter last year. What about free nursery education for all two-year-olds? That has been abandoned. More maintenance grants for students were granted last year, collapsed in a complete shambles this year and face massive cuts next year. Then there is the Prime Minister’s promise of a new constitutional settlement. We were promised more powers for Parliament to question the Executive. That one ended up down the nick.

Continue reading "Conservative MPs respond to the Queen's Speech" »

Reflections on the Queen's Speech

Her Majesty the Queen addressed Parliament today. Herewith a few points.

It was mildly amusing to hear her address the room as "my Lords and members of the House of Commons", without using the words "ladies and gentlemen"! (But only mildly amusing.)

The speech - written of course by the Government - referred to the global economic downturn, thus seeking to embed the idea that none of this is Labour's fault. I like to think that this stuck in Her Majesty's mouth a little.

The Government is planning a number of bills.

It wants to create "saving gateway accounts" for those on lower incomes. There were also nods to localism and welfare reform, but with absolutely no details (other than an indication that the latter would focus on people with disabilities). In fairness, there is very little time in a short speech about a comprehensive programme, but there will be a day of reckoning.

There was a promise of increased police accountability (perhaps inspired by Boris Johnson's successful London Mayoral campaign which talked a lot about this issue), a "more effective, transparent and responsive" justice system and stronger border controls.

Her Majesty said that her adminstration wants to fight discrimination and pursue equality of pay for men and women. The goal of ending child poverty by 2020 was reaffirmed.

There is to be an NHS bill, which will enshrine a duty to take account of the new NHS constitution outlining the core principles of the service and the rights and responsibilities of patients and staff.

Education reform - to "promote excellence in all schools" and create a right for people at work to request time for training - was also on the agenda. So too was "constitutional renewal", which will apparently involve strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures. It seems likely that they will make things worse, given Labour's track record on the constitution.

The Government is further seeking to put in place environmental protections for marine resources and bring in a "right of public access to the coastline", the latter of which is potentially worrying.

Her Majesty also stressed that her government was eager to cement relationships with the devolved administrations, Europe and NATO, and pursue peace and prosperity in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran's nuclear threat was singled out, and the words "continued progress" were used about Iraq, which was fairly bullish.

In a reminder of her status as head of the established Church, the Queen ended by saying that she prays that "the blessing of Almighty God" may rest upon Parliament.

Tom Greeves, who wrote this post, worked for Boris Johnson on his Mayoral campaign.

David Maclean MP protests at the "second-class" status of MPs for English seats

David Maclean MP during the Queen's Speech debate: "I am disappointed—this has been commented on already, but it is my turn to say so, too—that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to deal with the constitutional outrage we face in the House whereby there are two classes of MP. It is not good enough for some Government Members to say that if Tory policies were enacted, there would be a second class of MP—we have that already, and it is called the Members who sit for England, whether they are Tory, Labour or Liberal. We are second-class citizens in this House. We have no say on Scottish matters—maybe we do not want to have a say on Scottish matters—yet Members from Scotland can participate in today’s debate and vote through measures that affect my constituents in England but do not affect their constituents in Scotland. This Parliament is unbalanced, because all of us in this Chamber should work under the principle of equal pain.

If I vote through higher taxes, I should face my constituents, who can complain about it. If Members from Scotland vote through higher taxes in England, however, they do not have to face their constituents in Scotland... Members from Scotland can vote through measures in England on tuition fees or health reforms that do not apply in their own country. When they go back to their constituents, they do not have to explain or justify one iota why they have imposed penalties on people in Cumbria or London, and they are getting off scot-free... My constituents have no say on health care at Raigmore hospital in Inverness or on what goes on in Dumfries and Galloway, but, by God, they are paying for it. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) can determine health care in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). They can determine the level of tuition fees for our constituents in England, but we have no say on those matters in Scotland.  I do not want to have a say on Scottish matters, which are up to the Scottish Parliament, but it is therefore utterly unfair for Scottish Members of Parliament to come here with additional rights to dictate terms and conditions on taxes to my constituents that they do not have to suffer themselves.

...In this House, where we should all be equal, Scottish Members of Parliament are using their unequal privileges... We are not equal in this House, because the hon. Gentleman has infinitely more rights than me—he can impose things on my constituents, which I cannot do to his. I think that I have made that point about Scotland, to which we will need to return again and again until we rebalance this House of Commons with equal rights for everyone.

Before someone says that I am in an unholy alliance with the nationalists, I must say that I despise, in the nicest possible way, what the nationalists stand for—I despise nationalism. I respect the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as I respect all other hon. Members, but I despise nationalism and separatism. Scotland and the Government are going down a very rocky route, which will lead to the disintegration of the United Kingdom."

Source: Hansard.

Tony Baldry and John Redwood wonder why the Labour benches are empty for the first backbench contribution to the Queen's Speech debate

Tony Baldry MP: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the monitors in the Palace be checked? I cannot believe that they are working properly, given that not a single Labour Member of Parliament is present other than the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I cannot recall another occasion on which not a single Back-Bench Labour Member has been present other than the Member who is speaking. How on earth do the Government think they can sustain the debate until 10 pm when no one is here?

Mr. Speaker: The important thing is that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is here to listen to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—and, of course, I am here to chair the proceedings, so everything is fine.

After 4.58pm John Redwood MP returned to Mr Baldry's theme: "If the Government are serious—and I hope that they are—about wanting to make Parliament the fulcrum of our national political life and the centrepiece of our debate, surely the Chamber is the place where the first clash of argument should take place over the nature of the Queen’s Speech, and whether it is wide-ranging enough or deep and profound enough. If that were the case, more Labour Back Benchers would wish to stay for the rest of the debate. For the Hansard record, only two Labour Back Benchers spoke in the debate after the speeches by Front-Bench Members, so it can probably be argued that they do not support the speech enough to come here and speak in favour of it, although, doubtless, they will vote for it. It implies, too, that they believe that the debate has already taken place."

Then Angus Robertson MP of the SNP: "On the issue of the Hansard record, is it not noteworthy that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in the Chamber? Many measures in the Queen’s Speech pertain only to England. Labour Members are not prepared to listen to the debate, yet they are prepared to vote for measures that will impact on English constituencies, which is a very odd state of affairs, is it not?"

Source here.