That, for the year ending with 31 March 2019:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £174,176,998,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 957, HC 945, HC 959, HC 964, HC 968 and HC 977, of Session 2017–19,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £21,891,869,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £155,875,820,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Craig Whittaker.)
3 July 2018
The House divided:
Question accordingly agreed to.View Details
Ordered, that a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions.
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Elizabeth Truss, John Glen, Robert Jenrick and Mel Stride bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No.2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading.
Mel Stride accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending 31 March 2019; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 241).
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank you for your forbearance this evening? Perhaps it is pertinent, given some of the angst from those on the Government Benches, to point out just exactly what has happened this evening. The reason we are here is because of Government business. The Government are responsible for timetabling, and this was the only opportunity—[Interruption.]
Order. I will hear Mr Blackford’s point of order.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Voting this evening was the only opportunity we have had to speak out against the continued austerity of this Conservative Government and the attack on the budget of Scotland. More importantly, three weeks ago, we witnessed a situation—[Interruption.] I hear about embarrassment, but don’t talk to me about embarrassment. The embarrassment that took place was three weeks ago, when we had a power grab against the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I signalled to the Conservative Government then that what they had done was act against the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, and that it would no longer be business as usual. I now commend the Scottish National party for standing up for Scotland tonight, and I say to this Conservative Government that we will use parliamentary procedure to oppose this Government every inch of the way and to make sure that the SNP stands up for the rights of the Scottish Parliament until Westminster recognises that it must reverse the power grab against the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.]
Order. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but I have to say that although it was most eloquent, it was not necessary. It seems to me that the point he is making is that he and his colleagues will use parliamentary procedure to make sure their opinions and those of their constituents are well aired here in this Parliament. He has done so and he has every right to do so, and the Chair will defend his right and that of his colleagues to do so. However, there was no need for his point of order, because we are all in agreement about the importance of using parliamentary procedure for the correct ends.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to what the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, it is interesting to know how important he thought the debate was, given that he could not sit through it. Only two Scottish National party Members sat through the debate, which the SNP called.
Will you respond to a couple of points, Madam Deputy Speaker? First, I do not care how many times we vote but we saw pathetic theatrics from the SNP and you twice had to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to get them out of the Lobby. Only 33 SNP Members voted tonight. I know that under the SNP in Scotland the level of physical activity is among the lowest levels anywhere in the world, but I am surprised at how long it took just 33 Members to walk through the Lobby. That affects not only Members of this House but House staff. Will you or the Speaker reflect on how such antics affect House staff, who have to stay here for longer?
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke about austerity from this Conservative Government. He and his colleagues have just voted against the estimates, and had they succeeded, Scotland would have received nothing from the UK Parliament. Is it correct that they want no money to go to Scotland?
The hon. Gentleman’s final point is a point of debate, and we have had a full debate on those points today. As to his point about the length of time it took to divide the House five times this evening, nothing disorderly has occurred—
The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish answering the point of order. Nothing disorderly has occurred. It is up to every Member of this House to decide how to use parliamentary procedure. I am quite sure that those who called five Divisions this evening know the effect that their calling of those Divisions has had.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House spent more than an hour this evening voting on huge matters of public expenditure and committing serious amounts of public money for spending. Given that we had five votes and it took more than an hour, have you been given advance notice of a statement from the Leader of the House on the introduction of electronic voting?
No. The hon. Gentleman asked a reasonable question, to which I can only give a straight answer.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We spent an hour considering the important allocation of spending by Department by this Government, and we here in this place are tasked with that very function. However, would it not be a lot better to solve all these situations by doing what my hon. Friend suggests and getting electronic voting down here so that we do not spend hours and hours in packed Lobbies going around in circles just to vote?
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I have already answered it. I have had no notice of such a matter to be raised.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the faux outrage from one of the Opposition parties and the effect that that can have on personal health, can you advise whether the Clerks or the House authorities have checked both the location and the workability of defibrillators near to the Chamber?
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have every confidence that the defibrillators—I do wish that the hon. Gentleman had not asked me to say that difficult word at this time. I am confident that the important machines to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in perfect working order.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order ,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Second Reading of the Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill may be taken, though opposed, at any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.— (Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
House of Commons Members’ Fund
That the Rt Hon The Lord Lilley, David Mowat and Ian Blackford be discharged as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Eric Martlew, Peter Grant, Charles Walker and Anne Main be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of Part 1, Section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016. —(Andrea Leadsom.)
Business without Debate
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 59(3) and 90(5)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
That the public bill committee to which the Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill stands committed shall:
(1) have the power to send for persons, papers and records, and
(2) have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. —(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Disclosure of Information
That the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 17 May, be approved.
That the draft Data Sharing Code of Practice: Code of Practice for civil registration officials disclosing information under section 19AA of the Registration Service Act 1953, which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.
That the draft Research Code of Practice and Draft Accreditation Criteria, which were laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.
Statistics and Registration
That the draft Statistics Statement of Principles and Draft Code of Practice on changes to data systems, which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.
That the draft Information Sharing Code of Practice: Code of Practice for public authorities disclosing information under Chapter 1, 3 and 4 (Public Service Delivery, Debt and Fraud) of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved. —(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Changing Places Toilets
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Falkirk constituency.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Falkirk constituency,
Declares that the petitioners believe that over a quarter of a million people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as other disabilities that severely limit mobility, cannot use standard accessible toilets and need personal assistance to use the toilet or change continence pads; further that their needs can only be met by Changing Places toilets with adequate space and equipment, such as hoists; further that the need for these facilities is growing with the number of people with complex disabilities and increased life expectancy; further that “British Standard 8300:2009 Design” of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people recommends that Changing Places toilets should be provided in larger public buildings and complexes; and further that the current lack of Changing Places toilets is leading to thousands of disabled people experiencing a risk of injury and lack of dignity as families are forced to risk their own health and safety by changing their loved one on a toilet floor.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to proactively promote the installation of Changing Places toilets in all large public places, including Government buildings; and further to amend existing equality legislation to specifically require that Changing Places toilets should be provided in addition to standard accessible toilets in venues such as city centres, shopping centres, arts venues, hospitals, transport hubs like train stations, airports and motorway service stations, leisure complexes, sporting stadiums and arenas, in order to enable all disabled people to go out, go to the shops, attend hospital appointments, enjoy community life and travel with the same dignity as everyone else.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Order. Before I put the question I should explain for the sake of clarity that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) who was due to bring the Adjournment debate this evening is unable to do so. There will therefore be no Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.