Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s contribution. She will understand that the House of Commons Commission looked very carefully at the options for a temporary decant, which could mean eight or even 10 years out of this place. She will also understand that, from a security point of view and from the cost-effectiveness point of view, the House of Commons Commission looked at the best combination of both those things. Temporary structures that are not possible to secure, and structures that are by their nature temporary and provide no legacy value, were also looked at carefully, but the decision that was taken to move to Richmond House provides permanent legacy value as well as the cheapest—or at least equally cheap—cost to the taxpayer.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

Most people must be in favour of something happening, but I question the timing. There are many people in all our constituencies who are hungry and face destitution. How dare the Government bring forward a Bill before we are out of austerity and have made good those cuts in the living standards of the very poorest? Surely we should not be considering whether this fire door or that fire door works and whether the scheme is temporary until we are out of the age of austerity and have rewarded those who have paid most, which is the poor.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I completely understand his point. He will appreciate that the Palace of Westminster is in the state it is in precisely because Members have made those exact points for more than 150 years. The reality is that it is now costing us a fortune every single day—money is being spent by the taxpayer to patch and mend a building that is beyond patching and mending. Seizing this bull by the horns and doing something proactively about it is designed to give good value for taxpayers’ money, instead of what is happening now, which is spending more and more money to try to restore something while we sit here, which will be much more expensive to do.

Business of the House

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to him. I call Mr Frank Field.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

I did want to speak, but I think can weave the 30 seconds into my speech later on, if you are mindful to call me.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, what impressive self-restraint. That may be a model that others should follow. Who knows? I say that more in hope than expectation. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Business of the House

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I heard her question at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. She is freely able to bring forward that subject in an Adjournment debate or to seek consent for a Back-Bench debate to have it discussed in the House. The matter clearly affects the constituencies of a number of hon. Members, and I encourage her to bring that subject forward for discussion.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

If this Session of Parliament runs beyond June, will the Leader of the House consider giving us more days for Back-Bench business and for private Members’ Bills? If he gives us more days, will he put the Bill I am promoting with support from colleagues on both sides of the House—for the automatic registration of children for free school meals and the school premium—at the top of the list on one of those days? That is the one move we could make between now and the summer holidays that would have a real effect on poor families.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of pursuing social reforms of that kind, and I will certainly look very carefully at what his Bill proposes. Of course, the progress of business in the House very much depends on our success in getting Government business through. We have a substantial programme—it was set out in our manifesto—to bring forward and complete by the end of this Session. I want to make sure that the dates set for both the Queen’s Speech and for the end of this Session and the recess are consistent with our need to ensure that our manifesto is implemented.

English Votes on English Laws

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is right that he would be barred from that, certainly at this point, but I can see that that is the logic of where we eventually go, although I suspect that logic might be resisted by the Government and Opposition Whips Offices because I know from my own experience that getting people to serve on such Committees is not always easy. It will be interesting to see what influence the Government business managers bring to bear on that in the fullness of time.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Is there not a further reason why we would charge the Government with haste on this issue? Many of us on the Opposition Benches—a growing number, I hope—think the impact of the Scottish referendum will be to move this House to an English Parliament, with Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That ought to be at least part of the discussion, rather than being excluded from the discussion, as the Government have done.

[Mr Carmichael]

Rather than saying that that should be part of the discussion, I think it comes to the very heart of the discussion. I fully accept that the devolution process that was started in 1999 has created within the United Kingdom a number of anomalies. I entirely understand the concerns felt by right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in England, in particular. In order to address these anomalies, we need mature considered measures, instead of replacing the existing anomalies with further anomalies, as I very much fear the Government are about to do.

Devolution and the Union

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I will try to meet the five minutes deadline. I am pleased to join in this debate. When I first joined the House of Commons in 1979 I held the views that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) held. The world has changed dramatically since then, and this debate should much more accurately reflect those changes. So when the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) invited me to join him in calling for this debate, I jumped at the opportunity. Although on the Order Paper it is described as a debate about the consequences of Scottish devolution, for most of this House it is a debate about England.

My great fear has always been that for quite understandable reasons, for the protection of our privileges, Labour might seem to be wishing not to speak for England. If we are to have a life as a party, it is crucial that we are seen not to be joining the debate, but to be leading it. The worry is that if we protect privileges that may not be our privileges in the next Parliament anyway with a large representation of Scottish Labour Members in this House of Commons, we will increasingly be seen as a party of ghosts, representing a land that no longer exists. Therefore, I jumped at the opportunity to be a co-sponsor of this debate so that, as far as one can possibly ensure, there is a strong view from the Labour Benches—that has already been represented, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff)—that this is an issue on which Labour wishes to lead. It will clutch it to its bosom and debate it constructively, given the results of the Scottish referendum.

I did not think we were in the position that the hon. Member for Aldershot was when he said that he feared that Scotland would go its own way. The truth is that Scotland is going its own way and we need to adjust to that. In doing so there are two big questions that we, as English Members, must answer in a way that is not spiteful or mean and which does not try to trip Scottish Members up. We need to see that they prosper as we wish to prosper ourselves.

One of those two questions is the West Lothian question and the other concerns the Barnett formula. There are siren voices that have been active in this debate since 1977, telling us that we cannot move on constitutional changes unless we have mega conventions to debate the issues. It is quite clear now what the constitutional settlement will be, whether we in this Chamber like it or not. There are going to be four Parliaments, where England has its voice, Scotland has its voice, Wales has its voice and Northern Ireland has its voice. Although some might object to the name senate, there will be a House of Lords much reduced in size and called a senate, which will have the responsibility of protecting the liberties of the four constituent Parliaments and dealing with those matters not delegated to those Parliaments. Only by having such an arrangement can we honestly stand up and say that we have settled the West Lothian question. Some might say that that will somehow create inequality of Members of Parliament, but we have inequality of Members of Parliament now. I cannot vote on some Scottish matters, but Scottish Members can vote on English matters.

The second issue is clearly the Barnett formula. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who led for the Scottish nationalists, would not say when Scotland would return to demand total independence. His phrase was, “It is up to the people.” Scottish Members must understand that while the Prime Minister and the leaders of all the parties may in good faith have said that they will defend the Barnett formula, the next Parliament, which will have a much clearer English identity than this Parliament has, may not wish to honour those pledges.

The starting point for that debate is as follows. Whatever the complications of the formula are, it is totally unacceptable that the poor in my constituency should be less well supported than the poor in Scottish constituencies, let alone the richest people in Scottish constituencies. While of course I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), we do not have to have one or the other. We will have English Parliaments, but we will also see a delegation to the great city regions of England. They are not incompatible.

[Mr George Howarth]

I think my right hon. Friend has answered my question. We could still get all those disparities within England, and the question is how to address that.

[Mr Field]

Clearly, the debate about the Barnett formula has to be comprehensive. It has to take up all forms of support and from different sources. At the end of that we must come to a conclusion that we can all defend to our constituents, whichever part of the four countries we try to represent. That debate will take place. It might be called the Barnett formula. That is where the time will be consumed. The time will not be consumed in deciding what the constitutional settlement is, now that Scotland has, in effect, got the independence it wished for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening before I made any points, because he has allowed me to say something that I had forgotten to include in my speech. He mentioned the “once in a generation” quote, but I think that must be seen in context—[Interruption.] I encourage the scoffing hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to do the same, and to look on YouTube where he will find an interview between Jeremy Paxman and Alex Salmond from seven years ago. Mr Salmond was asked whether a referendum would be a once-in-a-generation event, or whatever, and he said that the referendum would either be once in a generation or when there was another electoral mandate for one. He was very clear on that. He said that in his view it should be once in a generation—[Interruption.] Again, Labour Members do not want to hear the truth; they want to invent their own history, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at YouTube because it is clear. Alex Salmond said that a referendum would be dependent on another electoral mandate. He could not bind the hands of the Scottish National party or—more importantly—the wishes of the Scottish people. The next referendum will be when the Scottish people want one, and I hope the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) will be a decent enough democrat to accept that point. I am sure he will when he reflects on it, as will the scoffing Members on the Labour Front Bench.

[Mr Frank Field]

Whatever YouTube shows, the Scottish people will make decisions when they want to make decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that after the next election, whatever has been promised, this Parliament may wish to make progress on the Barnett formula?

[Mr MacNeil]

I agree with that but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that after the next election, according to current opinion polls—indeed, going by stories in the Daily Record of all places—the complexion and make-up of this Parliament will be very changed.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As the motion makes clear, the Committee will be time-limited and report in January next year.

There has been some misunderstanding, and much heated discussion, of the clerkship. Those are issues to which I have no desire to add, but the following facts are not in dispute. First, the chosen candidate, Ms Carol Mills, an administrator in the Australian Parliament, was not qualified for the specifically constitutional and procedural functions exercised by the Clerk. Secondly—

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I am very pressed for time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I allow him to intervene later, perhaps at the end of my speech. We are under tremendous time pressure.

Secondly, Ms Mills was and, indeed, is herself subject to an inquiry by the Australian Parliament. Thirdly, the Speaker’s panel of selection was purely advisory, and was smaller than, and assembled on a different basis from, that used in 2011. Fourthly, the terms of the process of recruitment changed from the original terms set out by the House of Commons Commission on 30 April 2014. Fifthly, while acknowledging the Clerk’s executive functions, the advertisement for the post in The Sunday Times led with, and specifically emphasised, “constitutional matters” and the Clerk’s role as

“chief adviser to the Speaker, the Leader of the House and other members of the Front Bench on matters of procedure and privilege”.

Sixthly, outside headhunters, Saxton Bampfylde, were used for the first time. Seventhly, despite all that, the final candidate—Ms Mills—was, in effect, recruited for a job that did not then exist as such, that of chief executive of this House. Finally, the letter nominating Ms Mills was signed by the Speaker on the advice of the panel, was sent to 10 Downing street during the recess, and, but for the intervention of Parliament, might have been forwarded to Buckingham Palace during the recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I regret that I was not at that conference, and I am unfamiliar with the comparisons that might be made, but I absolutely agree that continued progress in modernisation and management is important.

[Mr Frank Field]

Surely we do not want modernisation for modernisation’s sake. We want it so that we can carry out our major functions more effectively. They are to hold those on the Treasury Bench to account and to conduct an intelligent five-yearly election campaign.

[Jesse Norman]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that, as a strict Burkeian, I—along with many Members of the House—believe in intelligent reform. I therefore broadly share the perspective that he offers.

I believe that we can draw a number of conclusions from this matter. First, it is facile and mistaken to argue that the House is poorly managed today simply because it was poorly managed in the 1980s and 1990s. Rather, there has been steady if somewhat inconsistent progress against a background of massive growth in demand for House services, significant change in information technology, and rising standards and expectations both from Members and from the general public. It would be a tragedy if that process of improvement and modernisation were to be set back by an obviously flawed appointment to the present clerkship.

These reviews have come at eight to nine-year intervals, and the proposed governance Committee would report next year, eight years after the Tebbit review. This debate therefore falls at a highly opportune time, and doubly so because circumstances and the needs of Members and of the general public, as well as politics and Parliament itself, have continued to evolve—and might, I fear, evolve further next week. A specific challenge is presented by the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. This mammoth project might, it seems, be managed by a specific delivery authority that is accountable to this House and the other place.

As the motion makes clear, a key issue to be addressed by the Committee is whether the roles of Clerk and chief executive should be split. The Ibbs, Braithwaite and Tebbit reports all came down against a split, but it is absolutely right that the issues here should be re-examined by the Committee in the light of changing needs and circumstances. I suggest that that question rests in turn on the answers to several further questions. If the roles are to be split, how exactly would the split work? What functions would fall on either side of the divide, and why? Presumably, in any scenario, the Clerk would continue to be responsible for the Clerk’s department of 800 people, or just under half the total employed.

Furthermore, would the Clerk and the chief executive be coequal? That would require careful thought, as there are cases in business where such an arrangement has succeeded, and cases where it has failed. If they were not coequal, who should report to whom? Would the Clerk, authorised and protected by letters patent, report to the chief executive, or would the chief executive report to the Clerk—in which case what, apart from the job title, would have changed? What would be the implications for relations between the Houses? What legislation would be required if the Clerk were no longer to be corporate officer? Finally, what would the cost be of such a split, in both salary and other costs?

Let me conclude with two reflections. The first concerns the present nomination. The letter nominating Ms Mills as Clerk was signed by the Speaker, on advice. Constitutionally, he and he alone has the capacity to withdraw that letter. I would request that he now do so. The second concerns the process of selection. The Tebbit review in 2007 recommended that the clerkship be subject to the selection board process used to select permanent secretaries, but that approach was not adopted. Whatever its merits, I would ask that, perhaps after the report of the Committee, the House of Commons Commission reconsider, agree and publish new proposals for a fully open, competitive and transparent selection process for the clerkship.

Reform of the governance of this House is, like marriage in the words of the prayer book,

“not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly...but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly”.

This motion is designed to enable sober reform, and I commend it to the House.

Business of the House

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wants to reply to the questions. I have no doubt he does, but it is my responsibility, and it is Ministers’ responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their responses to Members. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Public Administration Committee is examining the issue of the accountability of public bodies and their responses to Members’ questions. Notwithstanding all that, it is important for NHS England to ensure that it provides my hon. Friend with accurate information. I will ensure, with the Department of Health, that that is the case.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement about the Modern Slavery Bill. He is aware that there is substantial support on both sides of the House for the measure. Will he therefore guesstimate for us when it will complete its process here before going to the other place, even if this House tweaks it, hopefully, in a couple of important respects?

Points of Order

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House, who I think has clarified matters very satisfactorily.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure it is an unrelated point that the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise.

[Mr Field]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that this motion is crucial to the survival of the coalition, if the House follows the advice you gave to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), we would soon get another motion on the Order Paper, would we not?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My response is twofold. First, the question is hypothetical; secondly, the survival of the coalition, as the right hon. Gentleman, a Member of 32 years’ standing, can well testify, is thankfully not a matter for me one way or t’other.

If the point of order appetite has been exhausted, perhaps we can now proceed to the main business.

Standards and Privileges

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House two questions that arise from the report? First, how does the Committee on Standards and Privileges go about its business to ensure that one judgment is consistent with another? The second question relates to how long it takes for inquiries to be completed in the way that the Leader of the House has described.

On the first question about equity between Members, we are not in a position to know how many Members from the previous Parliament will end up in court. I therefore do not wish to cite examples of Members from the previous Parliament whose record of claiming moneys from the public purse was, on the face of it, pretty appalling. However, so far, some of those Members have not even had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, let alone been the subject of a report of this nature, which is handed into the House for it to comment and vote on. Will the Leader of the House tell us something about how the Committee goes about its work to ensure that in judging one Member it bears in mind the behaviour of and the judgment it has come to on another Member?

My second question relates to the length of time the inquiry has taken. Many Parliaments ago, I was asked to chair the Social Security Committee. One of our tasks was to look at the Maxwell theft of pension funds. We confronted layer upon layer of deceit. We completed our task, made our recommendations, suggested the shape of a new pensions Act, and were invited by the then Secretary of State to shape that pensions Act within a year—less time than it has taken to undertake this inquiry and report back to the House. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House addressed whether the speed, thoroughness and consistency of the commissioner’s work is appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I would be delighted to. Basically, it means that local community groups raising money to repair the fabric of their church will continue effectively to be able to claim grants equivalent to the value of the VAT on the works that are done. The only difference will be that some categories of work—primarily, professional fees, bells, organs and the like—will be excluded in the way they were before 2006, but everything else will continue to be claimable.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I thank the Minister for safeguarding this scheme, but does he regard his success on this front as the only success his Department has had in its negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?