Business of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the Prime Minister absolutely understood that housing benefit has risen dramatically and that it is essential to control it. He was absolutely clear, too, that under the last Labour Government the kind of rules that were applied to social housing had been applied to private rented accommodation, and that raises the question of why there should be a difference. He was also very clear that, as resources are finite in the current circumstances, we should ask why we are funding almost 1 million unused bedrooms in the social housing sector when there are 1.8 million people on the social housing waiting list.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
May we have a debate on the negative role of parasitic agents in professional football?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and many other Members have, over quite some time, raised the question of football governance. I will discuss the possibility of holding a debate on the subject with colleagues, although I am unsure which mechanism might be used—perhaps the Backbench Business Committee. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on football governance is a good starting point for moving on to consider when the House might look at these issues more generally.
Business of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will of course talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that I will always work with my colleagues to ensure that nothing is “sneaked out” and that Parliament and those who are affected by changes in benefit arrangements are kept informed.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
A further consequence of the collapse of Jessops and HMV is that thousands of customers have been left with worthless gift vouchers. May we have a debate on consumer protection in the gift voucher market, which is worth £4 million a year? Interestingly, figures from the industry show that £250 million-worth of vouchers are never used.
Mr Lansley
I am sure that many Members will have the utmost sympathy for the people who held gift and credit vouchers, some of whom may not have been able to afford to lose them. The law provides for all unsecured creditors to be treated in the same way in the event of an insolvency, and the list of preferential creditors is kept to an absolute minimum. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. He may wish to establish whether there is scope for a debate about the issue on the Adjournment, or through the Backbench Business Committee.
HEALTH
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
I entirely agree. It does not really matter which political party is in charge of the local authority. I am criticising Northumberland county council, which happens to be Liberal Democrat in its persuasion, but I would still be criticising it if it were Conservative or Labour. It is a question of competence and leadership, organisation and logistics; it is not about money. Lots of authorities up and down the country have been able to sort this out over an 18-month period—we should bear it in mind that authorities have up to three years to do so. Otherwise, 65% would not have gone down this track.
Everybody knows that the plans have to be completed by spring 2013. Indeed, I was present when the then Communities and Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), came to Stannington in Northumberland in August 2011 and met NCC planning officers and developers. He stressed the need for NCC planning officers to press on with their plan. It is not as if the local authority has not been warned. It appears certain that Northumberland will now not complete its plan by the March 2013 deadline. I have had that confirmed to me in person by senior councillors and it is an open secret at county hall. Indeed, it appears that the situation is worse: the plan might not be produced and finalised before 2014.
The county council’s failure to deliver the local plan will be an unmitigated disaster for Northumberland. The law is absolutely clear. If a planning authority has an up-to-date local plan, with identified sites to meet five years of objectively assessed need, it has all the powers it needs to resist speculative applications for development. However, if an authority does not have a plan in place or even a draft plan containing an objective assessment of housing needs and identifying five years of developable, deliverable sites, it runs the risk of speculative planning applications from developers and its decisions being overturned on appeal. As the Minister with responsibility for planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), told the House on 7 November 2012, an authority with a local development plan has nothing to fear from the Planning Inspectorate.
The Liberal Democrat county council’s failure will, I sadly suggest, be a green light for developers to run amok—in Ponteland, in Darras Hall, in New Ridley, in Ovingham and possibly in the west of Hexham. All those applications are mooted and the list is growing every month. Nor do we have minerals or renewables plans as part of the local development plan. That makes it hard to resist applications to do open-cast mining on green belt land, and our landscape is being affected by the random development of wind farms with little consideration of the cumulative impact.
I am not against development; far from it. I see the need for more houses. I have supported developments at the police headquarters in Ponteland, on the Prudhoe hospital site, and in villages such as Allendale. I must be the chief advocate for house building on the redundant Stannington hospital site. I even brought the developer to Westminster to meet a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to try to make it more likely that that development could happen in a sustainable way.
In the past, I have been harsh in my criticism of developers and big business seeking to cash in on the council’s slow progress in delivering a local plan. Perhaps that is just the old socialist in me, but I do not believe that the market always knows best. However, I am all too aware that Northumberland county council is the architect of all our problems. By failing to create a local plan, it is failing Northumberland. I do not blame the staff at county hall, who are as bright and capable as those at any county hall in the land. I do not blame the squeeze on council budgets, as more than 50 other councils have delivered a plan. A comparison with the other authorities shows that that is not the issue. This is an issue of competence, leadership, management and organisation.
The situation is not satisfactory; it is divisive. Worst of all, it creates a sense that democracy is not working, that big business holds all the cards and that the protector of local people’s rights, the local authority, is failing them. I am helping local people all I can, but as the county council is stuck in the slow lane, I must ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether there is anything the Government can do to aid that incompetent administration. How can we ensure that cumulative impact is considered so that applications are not treated in isolation, creating a patchwork quilt of development with no real thought to its impact on local people? How do people challenge developers when local authorities are not prepared to fight challenges to their local decisions which are appealed?
I know that, if we had a local plan, we would have the tools to fight, and the local will to create a sustainable Northumberland, created by the people, for the people, and with appropriate development for the people. The sad fact is that there is a fundamental lack of leadership to drive things forward and get things done. To say that there was better leadership on the Titanic would be unfair—accurate perhaps, but unfair. An expedited plan would provide a way forward. Without one, I fear for my county, and I fear the sense of unfairness that local people will feel. That cannot be good for sustained locally driven development, and it is not good for democracy.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
These are difficult times for local councils, and with further financial constraints confronting them, I pay tribute to the councillors of all political persuasions and officers who find themselves in ever more difficult situations. This is not an experience that I faced as a council leader, but one thing I do understand is the importance of ensuring that public money is not wasted or used for purposes that are inappropriate for a local authority or ultra vires under local government legislation.
In the hope that the Department for Communities and Local Government will pursue the matter with vigour, I bring to the House’s attention the extraordinary situation involving the former leader of Essex county council, whose exploits have been much publicised in recent weeks in local newspapers and on local radio, and in some national newspapers. It has been revealed that, from March 2005 to January 2010, he spent £287,000 using the council tax payer-funded credit card that he had been issued. That equates to a rate of more than £1,000 every week for five years, all tax free. Items of expenditure included 62 overseas visits to such places as Uganda, New Zealand, China and the United States—not places normally associated with the local government activity of Essex county council—often accompanied by council officers and councillors.
I can now reveal, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request that I made to the council, that the same leader first had a credit card issued in “mid-2002”. On the assumption that his spending pattern in the years from 2002 onwards was the same as that in the five years following the first published item on 9 March 2005—£89.21 for a lunch at the Barda restaurant in Chelmsford for the leader and an unnamed county councillor—it is likely that the leader’s credit card spending to fund his lifestyle of expensive tastes in the UK and overseas, paid for by Essex council tax payers, was in the region of £450,000. His last entry, funded by the good people of Essex, was on 27 January 2010 when, with an unnamed county councillor, he billed £77 for lunch at the Loch Fyne restaurant in Chelmsford. Last week, a motion was put forward at a meeting of Essex county council in respect of the credit card bills of the former leader, who resigned from the council in 2010, but it was not agreed.
I can perhaps best describe what happened by quoting distinguished journalist Mr Simon Heffer, who is a council tax payer in Essex, from his column in the Daily Mail of Saturday 15 December:
“Tory-controlled Essex County Council decided this week not to sue their disgraced former leader…for the £287,000 of ratepayers’ money he spent flying around the world with cronies and dining in style. This is a rash move. In four and a half months, the council is up for re-election. I am appalled that Essex Tories have such a cavalier view of financial accountability. Anyone who votes to put them back into office next May is mad. Did they take this view…because some of them, too, have things on their conscience?”
Simon Heffer may say that; I could not possibly comment.
In fairness, the current leader is a breath of fresh air. He was issued with a credit card on taking over in May 2010, and it was cancelled in August 2011 having never been used. That shows how much the previous leader abused his position and took Essex council tax payers to the tune of circa £450,000 to fund his expensive tastes and lifestyle. It is also fair to say that a new broom at county hall has ensured that new procedures will not allow such a situation to happen again, but it is not enough to clear up the stables—although pigsty might be a more appropriate description.
What has happened needs to be investigated. As the council is not prepared to have an independent investigation—I believe that is important; otherwise all county councillors will be tarred with the same brush—it must be for central Government to do so. Unless there is an independent inquiry, the stench will remain. That is not in the interest of Essex county council, its councillors and officers—a whitewash is not acceptable.
It is difficult to believe that the former leader was able for eight years to live the life of Riley paid for by Essex council tax payers, without others knowing. After all, many of the credit card bills refer to the leader being accompanied more often than not by officers and councillors. Why did the internal audit not notice the monthly credit card payments and ask questions? Why did the external audit not notice and ask questions?
On 17 October last year, a council spokesman said:
“All employee expenses are subject to audit and public scrutiny”—
but not, presumably, those of the former leader. How is it that the entire finance department and line management within it, leading in due course right into the office of the chief executive, did not notice and draw attention to it? Or is it the case, as has been put to me, that some people did try, but that there was a climate of fear and bullying at county hall? People were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. This attitude was not confined to the leader, as some councillors and some senior officers were involved. Only an independent inquiry can get into that barrel of apples to identify any rotten ones that are still in place.
I have been advised by a lawyer that he is prepared, at no personal cost to himself, to look at the paperwork and help draft a claim against the council and its officers for an apparent, and I quote,
“breach in fiduciary duty to Essex ratepayers who are owed the opportunity to see these matters rectified.”
It is said that the credit card records from 2002 to 2005 have been destroyed, but I believe the council’s records should still show the total credit card sums claimed by the former leader, even if the individual items cannot be listed. Perhaps the credit card company’s records exist, which an independent inquiry could look at.
The roll-call of countries visited by the former leader between 2005 and 2010 could well make him Britain’s most travelled politician. At 62 visits, that is probably more than the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and it is certainly not what one would expect of the leader of a local authority. Usually with at least one officer, his Cook’s tour reads as follows: United States of America, eight times; Belgium, 15 times; Poland, twice; Croatia and Sri Lanka, twice; Cyprus, Bulgaria and Austria, three times; France, three times; Slovakia and Italy, three times; China, six times; Hungary, Germany, Holland and India, three times; Australia, New Zealand, Uganda, Hong Kong and Finland, twice; Vietnam, Albania and the Bahamas, ending with his last overseas trip to Canada. In December 2005 Essex council tax payers funded the leader, a councillor and an officer to attend the winter Olympics in Italy at a cost of circa £1,400.
Perhaps an example of the leader’s extravagance is a visit he made, accompanied by a council officer, to Hungary on 17 May 2006 for a one-day meeting described as the “First Assembly of European Regions”. Putting to one side the fact that the wonderful county of Essex is not a region, which begs the question why he was there in the first place, the visit was stretched out over a total of five days and involved staying in three separate hotels—two in Budapest, which is 230 km distant from where the one-day conference was held, one of them five-star, with the other described as “art-nouveau extravagance” and “the World’s most famous spa”—having expensive meals at restaurants and hiring a car. This is a grand total, including flights, of £1,530.
Other interesting entries, completely contrary to local government rules and expenditure legitimacy, relate to the council leader using his credit card to pay for attendance at Conservative party conferences for himself and up to three officers of Essex county council, including their travel and hotel accommodation costs. One of his popular watering holes was an establishment in Chelmsford called Muddy Waters where in December 2007 he treated county officers to a meal, paid for by council tax payers, which came to £736. In July 2008, he claimed £42.94 for a Little Chef breakfast. I know that the Little Chef Olympian breakfast is good, but I think customers can get four for the price he paid, as he pigged himself into some sort of record book. Another interesting item is the £327.50 he paid for
“gifts purchased for Transformation Awayday”
from the Crooked House gallery in Lavenham, Suffolk.
That list surely in itself comprises an appalling betrayal of the people of Essex by the then leader of the council, but I must now refer to a further abuse. Throughout this period, the leader was also based at another establishment for which five full-time employees of Essex county council had security passes. A sixth, listed as his secretary in the directory of this other establishment, was actually based at county hall, and taxpayers paid all the office costs. When not on council business, the leader was frequently chauffeured here and there at all times of the day and into the early hours by a car and driver provided by the council. The five council officers were providing services that were not part and parcel of the leader’s position with Essex county council, but the council tax payers of Essex were paying all the costs. It is difficult to estimate what they amounted to over what was an eight-year period.
Stephen Gilbert
Does my hon. Friend agree that these outrageous claims must be properly investigated?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Gilbert, you knew when you rose to intervene that your colleague’s time had almost run out. You have already spoken, and I hope you want other colleagues to have a chance to speak as well. I do not want to have to shave a couple of minutes off other Members’ speaking times. I think you would agree that that would be totally unfair.
Sir Bob Russell
I agree with what my hon. Friend said.
As I was saying, it is difficult to estimate what the costs amounted to over what was an eight-year period, but staff salaries and all associated costs would easily take the sum over the £1 million mark, excluding the approximately £450,000 costs incurred through the leader’s credit card, to which I have already referred.
What has happened in Essex brings all local government into disrepute, which is unfair on hard-working councillors and officers, including those in Essex. Only a full independent inquiry into the stewardship of the council from 2002 to 2010 will serve to draw a line under this most disgraceful period since Essex county council was established in 1889.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise to celebrate Christmas. In particular, I want to celebrate Christmas in Dover, where we will have a new hospital built next year, after a decade in which our hospital services were decimated and progressively withdrawn. It is therefore great that health care will be moving forward.
I also rise to celebrate the fact that Dover has won the lottery. A £1 million grant has been awarded to Dover for the betterment of the community.
Most of all, however, I rise to celebrate the fact that today we have had news that the port of Dover will not be sold off to the French, or whoever, but will instead stay as it is and, I hope, become a community port and a landmark of the Prime Minister’s vision for the big society.
It was a shock to everyone in my community when in 2009 the former Prime Minister put the port of Dover up for sale as part of his car boot sale. That dismayed my community, and it became a key issue. A key pledge of mine was that the port of Dover should not be sold off, but should remain for ever England.
In autumn 2010, therefore, we launched the alternative: Dover should become a people’s port owned by the community. Our concern was that if it were to remain a trust port, every decade or so there would be a proposal to sell it off, and we do not want the port to be sold overseas. Rather than have to face that future threat ever again, we decided it would be better for the community to come together and buy the port.
The community bid was launched by none other than Dame Vera Lynn, to whom I and the community owe the deepest thanks and gratitude. Without her support, the port and the white cliffs above it would probably have been sold overseas, and we would be waving goodbye instead of celebrating a great Christmas present.
I thank Kent county council and Dover town council for their staunch support throughout this period. I also thank everyone at the Emmaus homeless charity, which is based at Archcliffe fort in Dover. Although they have no home themselves, they are concerned about our community and our port and the stake all of us hold in our society, and they agree that Dover should remain for ever England. They supplied the stewards for our rally back in 2010 when we launched the proposal for a people’s port. I also wish to thank Unite the union—Alan Feeney and his colleagues. They are not natural bedfellows for a Conservative MP, but they came together to support us all in working together, across party, across area and across disciplines, to get the best for our community.
Together, we set up the People’s Port Trust, which is chaired by Neil Wiggins. Its president is Sir Patrick Sheehy, who used to run British American Tobacco. That is a large company, so he is an experienced business man who knows what he is doing. We also have Algy Cluff, who opened up the North sea to oil exploration, Pat Sherratt, Councillor Nigel Collor and many others. They all came together to set up the alternative. We got funding from the city—we raised the money that was needed—and we tabled a counter-offer to the Prime Minister in November 2010. That was really important because there is no point in just saying no to a proposal; we have to put forward an alternative. Our alternative was that we, the people—our community—should come together to buy the port.
We then held a referendum, because we thought that it could not be a people’s port without the people endorsing the proposal. In March 2011, a referendum was held in the Dover parish asking:
“Do you oppose the private sale of the Port of Dover as proposed by the Dover Harbour Board and support its transfer to the community of Dover instead?”
Some 98% voted in favour, on a greater turnout than the previous district council elections. So I am pleased that Ministers have listened to our community, held a proper consultation and decided that it would not be the right thing to sell off the port of Dover overseas.
The current situation is that the sell-off will not happen under the Ports Act 1991. The real issue is what happens next. I hope that Ministers will look at the position, at how the community can come to own the port and at how we can have the big society in Dover. That really matters because it is not just the community, the local authorities, my electors and the unions who want this; the ferry companies and businesses want it, too. So we have complete unity of purpose and unity of desire across all strands of our community that the port of Dover should become a community port. This is important because a community port could be an engine for the regeneration of Dover and returning Dover to being the jewel in the crown of the nation that it once was. This could be a template for Newcastle, for Belfast and for how we can have renewal and regeneration in our seafronts and coastal towns to ensure that they can achieve maximum employment, success and attractiveness once again. I thank the Government for their decision today to chart the way ahead, and I hope that in the new year we will get great progress towards delivering the Prime Minister’s vision for a big society and the people’s vision for a community port.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I welcome the appointment of the four new board members and trust that they will bring a commitment to the job that I think, on occasion, was sadly lacking on the part of the four departing. I refer to the fact that attendance at board meetings was not always their top priority. On one famous occasion, only one of the five board members—the chairman—was present and the other four conducted the business down the phone. I am confident that the four new members will not follow that procedure, which is why I welcome them.
The Leader of the House referred to the National Audit Office in his introduction. He could have added that it estimates that 92% of Members of Parliament now subsidise their work. I trust that is something the new board members will address, along with the fact that 38% of claims cost more to process than the amount claimed.
The new board members have a job to do that the previous board did not. As a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I feel that the manner in which two of the departing four—incidentally, not one of them sought reappointment, which speaks volumes—launched what can only be described as a personal attack on Mr Speaker was unfair and simply unacceptable. I look forward to their apologising to Mr Speaker at some point, because it was the Committee that made the decisions; Mr Speaker acted in the name of the Committee. I welcome the four individuals, but I am not at all sorry to see the previous four go.
Mr Chope
May I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to address the issue of whether there is going to be an induction programme for the new members of the board? As a modernising House, we have induction programmes for new Members of Parliament and I think that they have been well received. I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding. Although I know that it is strictly outside the scope of the motion to say that the existing chairman should be invited to attend such an induction programme, perhaps he could be invited—even though it is three years late—so that those who sit on the independent board can be informed about our work.
Sir Bob Russell
Earlier the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the importance of the word “allowances”. Does he agree that the new board members should address IPSA’s use of the phrase “business costs,” because Members of Parliament are not businesses?
Mr Chope
That is correct. Indeed, ironically that point was made to me, unsolicited, by a senior colleague in the Tea Room on Thursday 22 November. I sat down in the Tea Room at 7.15 pm after realising that I had not had any lunch that day, and the first thing that this colleague said to me was the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I have included that in my letter to Sir Ian.
I do not often do this, but I told the House that I was concerned about the quality of the existing board members when we debated their appointment some three years ago. Indeed, I tabled an amendment proposing that we should exclude one particular member from the board—the former Member of Parliament for Taunton—on the basis that she had only been a Member of this House between 1997 and 2001 and I was sceptical about whether she would be able to contribute fully. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I was right to be sceptical, but I have to point out that on that occasion the Liberal Democrats used a procedural device to ensure that my amendment was not voted on and the main motion was then passed.
I continue to take an interest in this matter and hope that next time we debate the issues I will be able to report back on how Sir Ian’s day of induction with me went.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and to the other Members who have contributed to the debate.
I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to believe that the IPSA board will provide the House with a proposal for a new scheme for appointments. The body was established under the Parliamentary Standards Act and is bound by it, and the nature of the appointment scheme is set out in that legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made a number of points. I am sure that Sir Ian Kennedy will respond to him and I will invite Sir Ian to include in that response a reference to how the board intends to have an induction programme for its new members. That is, of course, a matter for the board—it is not a matter for me or, indeed, for the House—but I will invite him to respond on that point.
Sir Bob Russell
In his discussions, will the Leader of the House suggest that the website that gives details of board meetings should be kept more up to date? It notes that the last board meeting took place in July, but I assume that it has met in the past five to six months.
Mr Lansley
I will ask Sir Ian Kennedy to respond to that point, too. I confess that I do not know whether the board has met since July, but he will no doubt be able to better inform my hon. Friend.
I have known Sir Ian Kennedy over a number of years—less in the IPSA context than in his previous role as chair of the Healthcare Commission; I knew him in his capacity in that role—and think that on 22 November he probably understated his knowledge of Members of Parliament and what they do in this place. He probably regrets that, but I know from my conversations with him that he regards knowledge of the role of MPs and their activities and important work as important. He also believes it important not only for IPSA to recognise that fully in what it does, but for the public to recognise it as part of an understanding of how IPSA goes about its work and makes its decisions.
Business of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I know that hon. Members of all parties have taken a close interest in the situation of those who are at Guantanamo Bay. The hon. Lady may care to consider raising the matter at Foreign Office questions next Tuesday, but it also seems to me to be a subject on which she might like to seek a debate on the Adjournment.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
May we have a debate on the independence of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? You will recall, Mr Speaker, that in February I established through a written question that Ministers had met IPSA on nine occasions in the previous four months. I suspect the dead hand of the Treasury, because I asked a question in September, and the answer given this Monday at column 636 of Hansard refused to give information on the number of occasions on which the Treasury and Treasury Ministers had had discussions with IPSA.
Mr Lansley
I can tell the House that I have met IPSA since becoming Leader of the House, and nobody at that meeting would have regarded it as in any way compromising IPSA’s independence. I regard it as my responsibility to be fully informed, not least as a member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, so that we can express views to IPSA. Members have rightly taken the view that there should be independent scrutiny of their pay, pensions and terms and conditions through IPSA. It is important that having established that independence, we make it real.
Business of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is indeed right that, under the coalition Government, not least through the e-petition system and the Backbench Business Committee reform, we are improving opportunities for public engagement. Those are being taken up and they are demonstrating their potential. In so far as there is confusion, we just have to work through it. I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point. We will, of course, work together. I look forward to working with Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Lady’s Committee and the Procedure Committee to ensure that public engagement, not least through the new e-petition system, is as good as we can make it.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
In the Ministry of Defence there appears to be ignorance of Government policies on localism and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. May we have a debate, or at least an oral statement from a Minister, about garrison radio? I am talking about local garrison radio services such as those in Colchester, Aldershot and Catterick. There is urgency because on Monday the Ministry of Defence is due to sign away those local radio stations to the British Forces Broadcasting Service, which hitherto has shown no interest in local garrison radio.
Mr Lansley
I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. I remind him that Defence Ministers will be here for questions on Monday. He may find that to be the earliest, and therefore most appropriate, opportunity to raise the matter.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the appointment of the new commissioner. As the last person to be investigated by John Lyon, I am more than willing to meet the new commissioner to share that experience. I hope that she will bring proportionality, pragmatism, expediency, common sense, and a rationale of fairness and natural justice. I hope that she will consider the impact that the inquiries have on MPs, their families and their staff. Lastly, motivation has to be part of that inquiry, as it is an important part of it; in my case, the investigation stemmed from a complaint from my Tory opponent’s lodger.
Question put and agreed to.
Sittings of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Knight
I commend the Procedure Committee’s report on sitting hours—HC330—to any Member who has not yet read it because it will be helpful in determining the decisions to be made during this debate.
I have been surprised over the past two weeks to see reports in certain sections of the press suggesting that MPs were demanding shorter hours, and that at a “time of national crisis”, we were seeking to cut back on the number of hours that we work. That forced me to re-read my Committee’s report. As I suspected, I discovered no such proposition in it. In fact, the Committee concluded that the hours we spent at Westminster were broadly correct and should continue. I guess that the headline “MPs resolve to work as hard as ever but may choose different hours” does not have the same attraction for a sub-editor, even if it is accurate.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
It is difficult to believe that all the media got it so wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether his amended press release was taken up and reported by any of the media?
Mr Knight
Rather strangely, two sections of the press that had misreported what we were doing have now made changes on their website. It could well be that the truth has finally caught up with them.
It is usual for Select Committees to reach a firm conclusion and to ask the House to follow it, for very good reasons, but this usual practice is against the background of a Committee identifying an issue that needs attention or discovering a defect in our law or perhaps a fault in ministerial practice that warrants a particular remedy. That is not the case today. Although the Procedure Committee has expressed its view in the report, I wish to make it clear that on the issue of sitting hours, the Committee appreciates that each Member of Parliament has a different way of working. That means that in considering the House’s sitting hours, there are no mainstream options that are “right” or “wrong”, “antiquated” or “modern”, “effective” or ineffectual”: the whole issue is a matter of individual preference.
Mr Knight
The right hon. Member has identified one of the consequences that would come into play if the House decided to change its sitting hours on Tuesdays.
It is not my intention on behalf of the Procedure Committee to cajole the House to vote in any particular way. I have tabled a number of motions to facilitate the House’s expressing a view, and if it wishes to make a change to sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays, it can do so today by voting for the appropriate motion.
I shall deal with the motions in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, starting with motion 1, which is to retain the status quo on Mondays. Many Members told the Procedure Committee they feel that earlier sittings would compromise the ability of Members from constituencies distant from London to make the journey to Westminster on Mondays—the point well made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). Those with constituencies closer to Westminster also made it clear that they valued the opportunity to carry out some constituency business on a Monday morning. If this motion to make no change to Mondays is passed, no further proposals will be put forward in respect of Mondays. If it is defeated—but only if it is defeated—I will move motion 2, which proposes a slightly earlier start. As no further proposals relating to Mondays have been tabled by any other Member, this will be the only alternative the House will be asked to consider.
Motion 3 is to retain the status quo on Tuesdays, and I will move it at the appropriate time. Similarly, if this is passed, there will be no further proposals dealing with Tuesdays. As I understand it, the other Tuesday motions—4 and 9—will in that event fall.
Sir Bob Russell
In its deliberations, did the Procedure Committee take into account the fact that the House used to have earlier Tuesday sitting hours, but it quickly restored the afternoon start because of the consequences, some of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has already alluded to?
Mr Knight
The Procedure Committee was well aware of why, having decided to sit earlier on Tuesdays as an experiment, the House subsequently failed to ratify that experiment. Speaking as a Member representing a northern constituency, I can point out other consequences. If we were to sit earlier on a Tuesday, some 750 people a day would not be able to have a tour of this building on Tuesdays, which is the day when most of my constituents prefer to visit Westminster. Denying them that opportunity would mean that they would have to come here on a Monday, when they would have to compete with commuter traffic in making the journey. That could force some constituents who can ill afford it to stay the night in London if they want to have a tour of this building. That may not be an overriding consideration, but it should be borne in mind before the House votes.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his Committee on their report, and on facilitating today’s debate. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman personally for the assistance that he has given me in ensuring that there was a proper range of options on the Order Paper.
When I entered the House 25 years ago, 40% of our sittings lasted until midnight or beyond and we were here five days a week. We had no computers, no mobile phones and no e-mail, and very little time was available for constituency work.
Dame Joan Ruddock
The hon. Gentleman says that it was Utopia, and indeed there were Members at that time who boasted about how infrequently they visited their constituencies. A few could recall the days when a brass band and the stationmaster greeted such an arrival.
I was determined to try to make a change. That is why, in 2001, I joined the Modernisation Committee chaired by Robin Cook which introduced the reforms that shape the parliamentary timetables of today. However, 10 years have passed since then. Everything has changed, and I believe that the House must change too.
Our constituents present us with a paradox. They despise us as a class, but individually and locally they value us. They are ever demanding—through e-mails, campaigns, packed surgeries, and constant invitations for us to support local events—and Parliament itself proceeds at a faster pace than ever under the glare of an all-pervasive media. As the Procedure Committee observed,
“This is an extraordinarily demanding role.”
The Committee found MPs working an average of 70 hours a week while the House was sitting, taking few holidays, and often remaining in touch even then and even when away with their families. For many Members, this life is very different from the one they led before entering the House.
Most telling was the Hansard Society survey that found that the effect of becoming an MP on personal and family life was universally negative. That is not a complaint. We are all volunteers and most of us fought very hard to get here, but the question is this: is that a reasonable state of affairs or could we improve how we work? Would it not make better sense, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) said, for the House to sit earlier in the mornings, functioning more like the other institutions of our national life? Might we not make better decisions if we started earlier and finished earlier? Constituents are always amazed that we begin to vote at 10 pm on two nights of the week.
Personally, I would be more radical than the options on the Order Paper, but I think that the 11.30 am start and 7 pm finish on a Tuesday is where the greatest consensus for change lies.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee and its Chair, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), and commend him for the very clear way in which he outlined the Committee’s position on various issues.
On the question of private Members’ Bills and Friday sittings, I acknowledge entirely the frustration and sense of futility felt by some hon. Members who are trying to introduce Bills with a significant level of public interest, which are talked out because the Bill at the top of the queue has taken all the time available. The challenges in moving our consideration of private Members’ Bills to one of the evenings in the week, however, are substantial and are outlined in the report. The report rightly asks the House to take a view. It is right that Members should make up their own minds on this important issue if my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) seeks a decision on motion 9.
The report is also helpful in making clear the importance of our work here, that it has not diminished and that there is no room for any reduction in either the days or weeks that we sit during the year. We know that the House engages in a range of important activities in the passage of legislation. On occasion, it works as a Committee of the whole House, which depends on whether the appropriate committal and programme motions have been agreed. The House also scrutinises the Government at oral question and on statements, and urgent questions can be tabled. It guarantees opportunities for the Opposition to hold the Government to account and it enjoys the successful new innovation of the Backbench Business Committee. Overall, the work of the House is crucial in holding the Executive to account. That is why we support the report’s recommendation that September sittings should be maintained. That will guarantee that the House is not in recess for too long, incapacitating its ability to fulfil its task in scrutinising Government and holding Ministers to account.
I come now to sitting hours on Monday to Thursday. Our response is based on two principles: first, that we need decisions on hours that minimise the harm to families as much as possible, and, secondly, that we will always favour sensible reform. In other words, we need reform that works in how it fits the demands of the work load placed on the House and the role of individual Members in discharging their responsibilities here. That is why we favour the retention of the current sitting hours for Monday.
That is primarily because the current sitting hours allow a reasonable amount of time for Members who live in the constituencies that they represent to get to Westminster for the week’s business. In addition, many London Members find Monday mornings useful for constituency business. I hope that a majority of Members in the House today will concur with our view and vote to retain the current sitting hours for Monday.
On Tuesdays, we understand the argument put by both sides of the debate. It is true that an earlier start and an earlier finish, as recommended in motion 4, will create more opportunities for Members to have people time and to spend valuable time with their families.
Angela Smith
I want to give others a chance to speak.
The latter is not the case for those of us who are separated from our families during the week by virtue of distance, but that should not blind us to the fact that we should, if it is practical and sensible to do so, create opportunities for those Members who do have family with them in London to enjoy more opportunities to spend time with them. That would be the equivalent of saying that because I cannot have something, others cannot have it either. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, there is a precedent for this new arrangement. However, it was not made permanent and it was defeated in a motion in 2005. I remember that occasion almost to the day, as my predecessor, Helen Jackson, resigned in the wake of that decision.
The main reason for the reversal was the perceived clash between the new hours and the work of Public Bill Committees and Select Committees, and access to the House for members of the public. There are genuine concerns about any change in hours and we should not underestimate the importance of allowing our constituents access to the House. The arguments in relation to Tuesday hours are finely balanced and Members will have to make up their own minds. But in doing so they should be careful to balance the needs of Members to discharge their responsibilities effectively with the importance of allowing Members reasonable access to decent quality time and time to spend with their families.
The same arguments apply to Wednesday and Thursday sittings in terms of balancing family life and the work of the House. However, the tensions here are even stronger than in relation to Tuesday sittings, because of the difficulties of Public Bill Committees, particularly on a Thursday morning, and the access to the House of members of the public on a Wednesday morning. Members should be careful in making their decision and should balance the need for quality time and their responsibilities in the House.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I would like to put in a request for friendly working hours for grandfathers, who seem to have been omitted, and for grandmothers where appropriate.
The real losers in this proposal will be the 20,000 visitors, predominantly schoolchildren, who come here on Tuesday mornings. In supporting retention of the current hours, I bring to Members’ attention the views of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), and the Deputy Leader of the House, who spoke with their experience of the time when we had earlier starts on a Tuesday. This will not only rob 20,000 children of visits on a Tuesday morning but impact on the 15 Select Committees involving 180 right hon. and hon. Members. We have two late-night sittings on a Monday and a Tuesday and two earlier finishes on a Wednesday and a Thursday. That is a fair compromise that keeps most people content, and I suggest that we stick with the status quo.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is breaking ranks with his party for the first time. It is a big step after such an illustrious career in this House.
The Government may well be withdrawing the programme motion, but I want to address the continuing threat of a timetable motion. Any attempt to force through a constitutional Bill of such significance and controversy represents an abuse of Parliament. Nobody whom I have heard speak in this debate is against reform of some form. Nobody supports the House of Lords as it is. The problem that this House always has to battle with is that, although there may be a consensus in favour of reform, there is no consensus on any particular reform. That is why so many seasoned Westminster watchers are so utterly perplexed about the determination with which the coalition is pressing ahead with this suicidal Bill. I suspect that it will prove to be a grievous self-inflicted wound for the coalition, perhaps even fatal, if it persists with it. Today’s dignified retreat nevertheless represents an abject defeat on the Bill, as there is little that saps the authority of an Administration more than an inability to obtain its business.
If a timetable motion were to be passed, it could prove the worst case for the coalition. A cobbled together, under-scrutinised proposal would undoubtedly get through this House in some form and then paralyse the upper House for the rest of the Session, only to be reintroduced in the next Session and forced through using the Parliament Act. I am describing not a worst-case scenario but the Government’s actual plan for conducting the progress of the Bill—to submerge this Parliament in a quagmire of Lords reform.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Do I interpret from the speech of my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP a desire for the coalition to collapse?
Mr Jenkin
It is not as though the Government were not already beset by problems and challenges on an awesome scale, as many Members have said. Economic growth is well below forecast, borrowing is still far too high and the unresolved and unresolvable euro crisis is probably leading us towards some kind of economic precipice. We are facing an economic emergency, as well as all the other challenges of government in a time of recession. This is the last moment for any Government to choose to pick a fight to alter any part of the constitution, when there is clearly no real consensus or common understanding of what needs to be done.
The debate so far can leave no one in any doubt that this is a massive constitutional change, but the Government have utterly failed to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House. What is the House of Lords for? Does it operate effectively as it is? Would the changes be likely to improve or impair its effectiveness? The answers are pretty straightforward. First, it is intended to be a revising Chamber, not a senate or a rival to the House of Commons. Secondly, as the Deputy Prime Minister has himself admitted on many occasions, the current Chamber is very effective. Thirdly, the changes seem to be intended to supplant expertise and experience with more party politics, which is hardly likely to improve the Chamber’s effectiveness.
The Bill addresses no evident crisis of the legitimacy of our constitution, yet it threatens to create a political crisis on top of an economic crisis. There is no public clamour for the change, and there are no crowds in Parliament square crying out their support. That is why the Government fear a referendum on the Bill, because the voters would certainly reject the idea of replacing the current effective, proven and appointed House with more elected politicians, appointed to lists by their respective parties on ludicrous 15-year terms.
So what is the Bill really about? The Deputy Prime Minister should be careful about accusing others of having ulterior motives, because what is his? The Bill is about power. It is about the Government remaining in office now and about the Liberal Democrats building a power base for when they are not in office. It is the product of a stitch-up, a deal between two coalition parties to stay in power. It is a bid permanently to shift the balance of power away from this House and towards a more legitimate House of Lords.
May I address the extraordinarily charming and eloquent speech given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband)? He said that the Bill’s opponents were trying to have it both ways, but it is its supporters who are trying to have it both ways. They cannot argue that an elected Lords would be more legitimate but in the same breath insist that the relationship between the two Houses would remain the same. The issue of primacy is just one of the fundamental issues that we will need to address before the Bill leaves this House.
That brings me to the continuing threat of a timetable motion. To timetable a constitutional measure under the current circumstances would be unconscionable. I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the much quoted Winston Churchill would be heaving in his grave with fury and indignation at the mere suggestion. The timetable is a modern invention, only introduced in 1997. The guillotine used to be an absolute exception, and even then was never used on a constitutional issue.
The Bill has 60 clauses and 11 schedules containing a further 158 paragraphs. The Government’s withdrawn motion would have allowed 60 hours in Committee, which would have been taken up by Divisions, urgent questions, statements and points of order as well as debate. That would have left, perhaps, an average of half an hour for each clause, let alone the schedules. Primacy, powers, accountability, remuneration, costs, expenses, staffing support, IPSA, financial privilege, the scrutiny of regulations, elections, voting systems, eligibility, constituencies, the question of a referendum or not—how many other topics will there be to debate, or must we have the freedom to debate should we so choose?
Constitutional measures used to pass through the House before there were timetables. Both the Parliament Acts themselves passed through the House without a timetable or guillotine. No timetable should be imposed, because our ability to scrutinise legislation in full is just about the only real check or balance in our constitution to protect it from the tyranny of a simple Commons majority.
As it stands, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will invite the Government to fast-track a massive constitutional change, which will nevertheless distract us from the crisis that demands our attention, which may fundamentally change the character of the government of our country, which fails to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House, which represents gerrymandering of the constitution and is the product of a stitch-up to stay in power, for which no referendum is to be provided, and on which the Government are determined to curtail debate.
Business of the House
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The time that the Government have in the House is for their legislative programme. That is why we are spending time on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and why we had the Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill on Monday. I was referring yesterday to Opposition days, when the Opposition can choose the subject. I suggested that instead of choosing the subject they chose yesterday, they could have chosen the eurozone or some other subject. I am delighted to see that they have chosen a serious subject for next week’s debate, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will engage in that. It is for the Opposition to choose subjects on which to hold Ministers to account; Government time is available for Government Bills.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The summer of 2014 will mark the centenary of the start of the great war. In view of the Leader of the House’s earlier answer, may we have a debate so that the whole House can discuss how we can join in to commemorate the great war?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. He will know that the Backbench Business Committee is the forum for bidding for such debates. I can only suggest that he presents himself to the newly established Backbench Business Committee and puts forward his proposal, which I am sure will have a lot of support on both sides of the House.