Finances of the House of Commons
Clive Betts Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
Indeed. I would say to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, that I was about to bring out the proper concerns he and other members of the Committee hold on that point. I will deal with them fully in just a moment.
The plans I have outlined will allow an extra 55,000 pupils a year to visit us. The current number is 45,000, so it will more than double. I emphasise that quite a lot of research has been done that makes it very clear that engaging with schoolchildren by getting them to come and see this place first hand and be shown how we work is by far one of the most effective ways of securing engagement in politics. I therefore set out not only to defend the education centre, but to advocate it robustly—we ought to be very proud of it.
The plans will depend on a number of factors, one of which is planning permission, which probably will not be dealt with until January or February. I thought it appropriate to draw that to the House’s attention today, as with a bit of luck, a fair wind and planning permission children could be using the new education centre this time next year.
Some Members have made the valid point that perhaps we should put the education centre on hold until renewal and restoration have taken place, but I respectfully argue the exact opposite. The centre will allow twice as many children to come here, so if we were to wait the likely five to 10 years for R and R it could be 12 to 14 years before the additional children came here, by which time several generations of schoolchildren would have missed their chance completely, so it is very important.
The costs involved—about £7 million in capital costs and approximately £1 million in running costs—are quite appropriate and proportionate to what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is correct that a substantial chunk of the running costs—£470,000 or thereabouts—is for security, but the House’s total security costs are about £25 million, so in context it is not a particularly large sum. My point of view—I happily recognise that it is purely personal—is that £1 million, which we hope their lordships will consent to share with us, would be a suitable and proper investment in the education of our children and in getting them engaged with politics.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am very supportive of the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps it would help other Members to know that that was not the only option that was looked at. Other options for increasing the number of schoolchildren coming here were considered. The only alternative available was putting a facility in No. 1 Parliament street. Anyone who considered that realised that fewer schoolchildren would be able to get through the facility and that it would simply transfer the congestion from Portcullis House and make it even worse at No. 1 Parliament street, so there is no real alternative to the proposal before us.
John Thurso
The hon. Gentleman, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, makes a valid point. The key point is that the per-pupil cost of this option was the lowest, so those of us who are in favour think that it gives the best value for money. Having said that, I completely recognise the point of view put forward by other Members. I am yet to meet a Member who is against the concept; the question is one of timing. I believe that we have to get on with it, but I fully accept that others do not necessarily share that view.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I support the comments made by the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I congratulate him on the excellent way in which he has chaired the Committee in the past year. He has taken us forward on a number of difficult and contentious issues with a general degree of consensus, and it is important that we have agreement across the House on these matters.
It is important that we have sought to reduce expenditure by 17% during this Parliament. It would have been inconceivable to our constituents if, while they faced cuts in their public services, we in this House had been immune to reductions and carried on regardless. It was important to take that initial step. A number of factors have been borne in mind in making those reductions and it is important to put them on the record.
As has been said, the reductions have been made in a way that has not affected the ability of MPs to do their job and hold the Executive to account. That is a fundamental principle that, by and large, we have achieved. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, I have not noticed any impact on the Committee’s ability to do its work properly in holding Ministers from that Department to account. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment from the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee to review Select Committee resources. That is a helpful move in the right direction to deal with any problems that might have arisen and been identified.
We have made the work of discussing, deliberating and making decisions on our finances more transparent. As a member of the Finance and Services Committee in previous Parliaments, I was often unsure what we had debated and what decisions we had reached. If we had reached a decision, I was often unsure what then happened to it. I was confused on that, and I think that if I had asked most MPs about how decisions on financial arrangements for this place were made, they would not have had a clue. In this Parliament, we have clarified the relationship between the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission. We make recommendations to the Commission and it is clear what the Commission does with them. That is a helpful first step.
It is important that we are having this debate today, the second such debate, so that matters are available for all Members to discuss, and, if necessary, vote on. It is also important that we have an annual budget, that we take decisions collectively across the piece on financial matters, and that, with the changes to Standing Orders, individual items with financial repercussions are not decided outside the framework of an annual budget. All financial matters must be taken within that framework. It is not too revolutionary to think of having an annual debate in this Chamber on the budget: any self-respecting council will have being doing just that for years. The fact that Parliament has only just got around to it shows we do not always move as quickly as local government. Nevertheless, we have got there in the end.
Despite the reductions, we have tried to treat our staff properly. They do an excellent job for us throughout the House. We should remember that and I think we have tried to reflect that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) drew attention to the dispute over staff increments, which is to be regretted. I hope we will continue to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue before it goes to court. We have to remember that even the best employers occasionally have a disagreement with their employees. Both sides have genuinely tried to resolve the matter, but have not come up with an agreed solution. The disagreement should not go to court through a lack of effort in trying to find a solution. I hope both sides redouble their efforts to find a solution to what is clearly a difficult matter.
On the opportunity for staff to engage with management and improve the delivery of services, I think it was the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) who tabled an amendment to the motion last year to give staff and management in the House the opportunity to bring about improvements before we moved to market testing. It is to the credit of both management and staff that their efforts to achieve savings and improve service delivery has meant that market testing has not been necessary because of the success of in-House improvements. The fact that the opportunity was given and taken ought to be on the record.
The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee referred to the discussions and decisions on the living wage and avoiding the worst forms of zero-hours contracts. That, too, is the right thing for a good employer to do, and it is right that this House of Parliament has done so.
Problems remain with the Metropolitan police contract. Over the years, there have been difficulties, and there remains quite a bit of staff unrest, including over changes in shift patterns. We have discussed that. In the end, it is a matter for the Metropolitan police, but if it affects the morale of staff in this place, particularly those with security responsibilities, it is of concern. I think that the new Chief Superintendent, Sandra Looby, whom I have spoken to about this, is up for having further discussions with trade union representatives. I hope those take place and that they can find a way forward that provides Members with a good service and staff with working and family-life arrangements they feel comfortable with. The Metropolitan police contract is up for renewal in a year’s time, so we need to consider this further.
Finally, on the education centre, it is right that in reducing our expenditure, we have not done anything that affects Members’ ability to do their job, but neither should we take any actions that affect the ability of members of the public—our constituents—to visit this place and to see what goes on here and how Members do their work. It is particularly important that we do not impact on the opportunity of young people and schoolchildren to visit this place. I understand the concerns about spending money on the education centre—I think everyone agrees that in principle it is the right thing to do—and I do not think we should delay that expenditure if it means schoolchildren losing out on the opportunity to come here. After all, if we delay the expenditure for five years, some of those children will have ceased to be schoolchildren. It is right and proper, if we have a bit of extra money to spend, that we spend it on opening up access to schoolchildren. With that included, I hope we pass today’s motion. I, certainly, am happy to support it.
House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme
Clive Betts Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is right that we are looking at a financial plan for the House that makes 17% savings. Given that all our constituents are seeing cuts to the public services that they receive, they would be incredulous if we said that we could not find any way to make savings in the way that this House operates. It is right that we are trying to do so.
It is right that we are having this debate and that Members are being allowed to vote on how much money is spent on the administration of this House and in what way. Having been in this House for 20 years, it seems unbelievable that we have never had this opportunity before. It is right that we have it today and that we should have it in future years.
It is also right that a fundamental principle of the proposals is that any reductions in spending should not reduce the ability of MPs to do their job and to hold the Executive to account. That has been a fundamental principle throughout the discussions of the Finance and Services Committee.
I commend the way in which the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee has conducted this operation. The way in which he has led the discussions, involved members of the Committee, tried to reach consensus, and gone outside the Committee to try to engage Members in a number of forums, both collectively and individually, has been an excellent example. He has alluded to the fact that he has not always received a massive response to those attempts to engage and gain views, but he has certainly done his best to do so. The issues before us are detailed. In general, the way in which we have approached them has been excellent.
We have been assisted by the advice of the management of the House. I put on the record my thanks to them for that. They have come forward with reports, alternatives and detailed analysis. In the past, I have sometimes questioned the way in which the management of the House have operated. Sometimes they have provided alternatives to Members, but sometimes the process has been very opaque. On this occasion, they have been detailed and helpful. They have certainly operated in a very professional manner.
I pay tribute, as did the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, to the staff of the House as a whole. The service that they give us is excellent. They are thoroughly professional and very committed to supporting our work as Members of Parliament. The way in which they have been involved in the process has been good. I talked to union representatives the other day. They are clearly not happy about every single proposal and they do not necessarily agree with all the reductions, but they are appreciative of the way in which the process has been conducted, both on the part of Members and how management have sought to engage with them.
I draw attention, in particular, to the business improvement plan, which has involved a great deal of discussion with staff representatives to try to get consensus and agreement. That has largely been achieved. I support the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Administration Committee because, given the extent of the commitment from management and staff representatives to that process, if we said today that we would go ahead with market testing without giving those proposals a chance to be implemented to see whether they work, it would be a breach of trust with everyone who has engaged so willingly in the process to try to reach a successful conclusion.
A fundamental principle is that we must not make savings or reductions in expenditure at the expense of the pay and conditions of the lowest paid workers in this building. That would be completely wrong. I worry that we would be doing that if we went to market testing, on top of the savings that can be made through the business improvement plan. Indeed, I hope that at some point we will commit ourselves to a living wage in this place, so that people who face the very high costs of living in London can be paid a little more for the work that they do for us.
Finally, I come to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Like the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, I understand why he has raised the idea, but I think that he is wrong. I subscribe absolutely to the three principles that the Chair of the Committee laid out. Of course this building has to be open and available for Members of Parliament to do their job. Nothing should be put in the way of that and we obviously have first call on the use of this building. Of course it is right for this building to be open and available for constituents to visit us and see how we work.
However, when people come in simply as visitors, I see no reason why we cannot charge them, just as they can be charged by Westminster abbey or Buckingham palace. I really do not see the difference. This place is expensive because of the nature of the building. It is a world heritage site. People come here just to admire the building or to look at the art collections and other things. It is reasonable that we should ask them to make a contribution. The Chair of the Administration Committee is right that many organisations already pay to use this building. They rightly and properly get the sponsorship of an MP, who signs a form to enable them to do that. Why should they not be able to use the buildings at weekends when the place is empty and contribute towards the costs of running it?
There is a fundamental flaw with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harlow. It would be wrong to agree to a spending plan today without agreeing to the income proposals on the other side. If we did that and the income proposals were rejected in a further debate, we would have agreed a net spending level that was not sustainable. We would then have to increase the level of net spending, in which case we would not make the 17% reductions, or agree to other specific spending reductions to allow for the income that we would not raise. It is important, if we are to have a serious debate about the financial plan and come to a serious conclusion—as I am sure we will—that we agree to the totality of the plan, including the spending proposals and the income proposals. That is why I will vote against the hon. Gentleman’s amendment if he presses it.
However, I support all the provisos put forward by the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee. We must continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the principles that he rightly laid out are adhered to.
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
We are grateful to Louise Casey for producing the report and we all applaud the work of victim support schemes in our constituencies. I would welcome such a debate. I remind the House that, following the report’s publication, we have made £500,000 available to take forward some of the immediate recommendations.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I ask for a debate on the criteria used by the Boundary Commission in its review and the inherent instability built into the system for the future? A city such as Sheffield has wards of 14,000 people, so only a small amount of house building in a new constituency such as mine is likely to mean that in five years’ time, there will be a knock-on effect in Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, because the ward size in Sheffield is such that it will not be possible to carry out further reorganisation there. This complete reorganisation is bad for democratic accountability.
Sir George Young
I repeat what I said earlier: it would be quite wrong of this House to get involved in the detailed boundaries that will be set out under the review process. The place for the hon. Gentleman to make his representations is not here; it is to the Boundary Commission.
Business of the House (Thursday)
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
What happened last night was certainly extremely unusual, and the Leader of the House did not seek to enlighten us this evening as to why the Government pulled the plug on their own proposal. Perhaps he anticipated the debate that we were going to have this evening, and the opposition to the motion that was going to be expressed on this side of the Chamber.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend really wants to help the Leader of the House to find some additional time, so I refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). We were given an indication last week that an unspecified Bill was going to come before the House next Wednesday. The rumour is that it is the long-awaited and much-heralded localism Bill. There is a further rumour, however, that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is more enthusiastic about that Bill than some of his Cabinet colleagues. If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend give us any more information about whether the Bill has been lost in the fog of Whitehall, and whether there might after all be time to debate this business next Wednesday?
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman said that that would be a helpful suggestion, but I am not sure that I agree with him.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the constitution and procedures of this House—probably better aware than anyone here—so surely he must have some concerns about the slightly ridiculous situation created by the possibility of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box in the tuition fees debate to try to persuade the rest of the House to vote for a Government policy when he is not persuaded to vote for it himself.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I have already dealt with. The coalition agreement is absolutely clear that on this particular issue Liberal Democrats are entitled to abstain.
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The localism Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech on 25 May, and it contains a wide range of measures to devolve more powers to councils. In answer to his specific question, the Bill will be introduced to Parliament shortly.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House announced a review of House sitting hours. Can he confirm that it will include a review of September sittings? Once it has taken place, will all matters, including September sittings, return to the House for a decision on a free vote? If so, will he provide to Members full information about the financial and other consequences for the long-term maintenance of the House of a shorter recess and less time to carry out maintenance during the summer?
Sir George Young
The Procedure Committee is indeed carrying out a review of the sitting hours of the House. It will include whether we should sit in September, as well as the actual hours that we sit during the day. That has always been a House of Commons matter on which Members have had a free vote. There will also be an opportunity for the House authorities to raise the issue of the cost to the House if they do not have a long run during the summer recess to carry out certain capital work—although whether that should be decisive in determining whether the House sits in September is something on which I should like to reflect.
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the comprehensive spending review, he will see that there is a flat-cash settlement in terms of pupils, on top of which there is a pupil premium; that is in addition. He should look at what other Departments have had to do and at the plans that his own party had. Had it won the election, he would have found there were real cuts in that budget.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I reinforce the calls for a debate on the housing benefit changes? This is a Government proposal and we should have a debate in this Chamber in Government time for the reasons given. What about a couple in their 50s living in a three-bedroom council property, the family home, which their children have now left? In future, because that couple will be deemed to be under-occupying that property, if they lose their job or go into short-time working, the rent will not be covered by housing benefit. They face the prospect of becoming homeless and will not be covered by the homelessness legislation. The proposal is unfair and unacceptable. We need a debate on it in this Chamber in Government time.
Sir George Young
As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, our policies are seeking to achieve the objectives of Mr Purnell, a former colleague of his, in ensuring that those who are on housing benefit are confronted with the same choices on housing as those who are not in receipt of that benefit. There will be an opportunity to debate the housing changes. Some of them need primary legislation and some need secondary legislation, so the Government will provide time to debate them as the opportunity presents itself.
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I understand how distressing that encounter must have been. We must see whether there are better ways of protecting victims of paedophilia from those who have perpetrated it. I have taken note of the hon. Lady’s bid for a debate. There could be a debate in Westminster Hall, or the Backbench Business Committee might like to take it on board.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House wishes that the question of Sheffield Forgemasters would go away, but it will not. When we have a further debate or statement on the subject, will he get Ministers who respond to address the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? When Ministers took the decision—we understand that they were Lib Dem Ministers—and officials were engaged in the discussions, were they aware of Andrew Cook’s objections? Were they aware that Mr Cook was a major donor to the Tory party? Importantly, were they aware of his conflict of interest and that he was expressing an interest in personally investing in the company?
Sir George Young
The issue of the Andrew Cook letter was dealt with extensively by the Minister of State in yesterday’s debate. The hon. Gentleman had a half-hour Adjournment debate but took only nine minutes to develop his case at the beginning. He has had ample opportunity on the Floor of the Chamber to raise the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters.
Backbench Business Committee
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as other Members have rightly done. First, I wish to reflect on how pleasing it is that we are discussing not whether the procedures of this House should be reformed, but how that should be done. We have taken the debate forward from the Wright report, and it is pleasing that the House has chosen to do so.
I wish to concentrate particularly on one aspect that has not been mentioned very much, if at all, and about which the Wright Committee had some discussions; feelings were equally divided about September sittings, but clearly the Government have chosen that we should resume the practice of having them, at least for this parliamentary year. We held an experiment about seven or eight years ago, when we came back in two successive Septembers, without having particularly glorious results. On one occasion, we managed two votes in a fortnight, and we encountered certain problems with the hunt supporters getting into the Chamber because of security issues resulting from the amount of construction work being carried out on the site while the House was sitting.
It is often made out that supporters of September sittings are reformers and those who do not support them have their heads in the sand and are looking backwards. In fact, there can be a genuine division of view on how Members would most productively spend their time in September—whether that is in the House or in their constituencies—and on how much time this Parliament sits for compared with other Parliaments around the world. However, I wish to raise a more boring, domestic issue relating to the functioning of this place.
I wish to discuss maintenance and the building’s being fit for the purpose of enabling meetings to take place at which the Government are held to account. It is no use passing motions that say that the job of this House is to hold the Government to account—of course, that is its job—if we do not have a building in which that can properly be done. Having lots of construction work going on around us as we carry out that function was not a happy experience when we tried it before.
When we consider Government Bills, Government legislation or private Members’ Bills, we try to inform ourselves of all the issues involved. However, this House has a terrible habit when we discuss this sort of domestic issue. Things seem like a good idea, we vote one way or the other—if we are allowed a vote on such matters—and then we pass on without any proper advice and information having been made available to Members.
When I saw the September sittings motion on the Order Paper, I was pleased that it referred to this parliamentary year only. I took the opportunity to go to the chief executive’s office, where Philippa Helme is always very helpful, and I then spoke to John Borley, who is the Officer in Parliament responsible for all our building and maintenance works, along with Mel Barlex. I meet them regularly because I was a member of the Finance and Services Committee in the previous Parliament and a member of the Administration Estimate Audit Committee too. The meetings were not always terribly exciting, but they were crucial.
John Borley told me that they had rightly anticipated that the House might want to sit in September. With a new Government perhaps coming in they could not guarantee that, but the thought was that it could happen and that at a beginning of a Parliament, because business might not happen quite so early, there would be a need for legislation to come through then. As Officers, they rightly predicted that September sittings might be held and they set their maintenance programmes up accordingly. Therefore, there will not be any dramatic effect this year in terms of altering what was already in train and what was already being planned.
My concern is that on these sorts of issues we do not bother to take account of the people who have to do the detailed professional work in building up maintenance programmes that keep this building functioning, not merely as a place of work, but as one of the most important historic buildings in this country—that is important too. We have seen the work that has been done on the cast-iron roofs, which has been crucial in keeping the fabric of this building going.
I know that in the past there has been an awful lot of criticism of how we have managed the parliamentary estate. We encountered major difficulties with Portcullis House and problems with the visitor reception area, and they created major problems for the budget of Parliament. We have run over budget and over time on the visitor reception area, which was an unhappy experience from which we have had to learn the lessons. With the appointment of these new Officers to manage our parliamentary estate, I have seen a much higher degree of professionalism, and a much greater willingness to plan ahead, to look at the options, difficulties and costs involved, and to see how we can develop a forward programme for budgeting, which is crucial. I have also seen the work of the Administration Estimate Audit Committee and how internal auditors now work with it to try to ensure that we have best practice in procurement.
Officers will say two things to us. First, they will say that they need a degree of stability and of advance warning, because it is not sufficient simply to try to pick, on a whim, when Parliament will sit on a year-by-year basis. We need significant and serious forward planning so that Parliament looks, as quickly as possible, at the longer-term arrangements over a number of years and gives the Officers advice about when it will be sitting and when time will be free to carry out essential maintenance work. The second thing that those people will say is that if, having examined the situation, Parliament is bent on having simply a five-week recess year on year, it will not be possible to keep the building in which we work—and that we treasure and have grow to love over the years—in a proper state of repair.
If hon. Members have any doubts about the situation, they should take a trip down to the underground passages under the House to look at the state of the mechanical, engineering and electrical systems, because they are very bad indeed. We know that a massive work programme will be needed. That will need planning, organising and funding, and it must be cost-effective. If we can shut down the building for only five weeks at a time, it will probably not be possible to carry out the programme.
It is not sufficient that I report these concerns to hon. Members second hand, so it is important that proper reports are made to the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee, with the audit Committee having a look, so that there can be a report to the whole House to inform Members’ decisions. We should try to plan our sittings for a whole Parliament, which would also help Members to organise their activities outside the House. If we could achieve all that, we could better approach these issues that are crucial to our working, even though they are quite dry and sometimes turgid matters that might not excite people politically. It is also important that we send a message to the public that if we have to make cuts to the services that they receive—we might disagree about where the cuts should fall and how great they should be—we will take proper account of the money that we have for the House and ensure that we spend it cost-effectively. Unless we carry out proper planning, however, that simply will not happen.
It is absolutely right that, if the Government wish, we should come back in September on the basis of the motion. However, if we are looking at future sittings, planning will be required, as will proper advice from the Officers who run the Palace of Westminster for us. All Members should have access to that advice before voting on such sittings in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
We have had an extremely good debate. We have teased out a lot of the issues that relate to the establishment of the Back-Bench business committee and to the various proposals that we have put forward, which are in line with the Wright Committee proposals. There are some areas where the House will wish to take a view. There are others where there is a clear preponderance of voices, at least in the debate, in favour of what we have proposed.
I want to take a little time to deal with the issues that have been raised because they will repay further consideration. I will deal first with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). I am grateful for her general welcome for what we are doing. She asked some specific questions and she deserves specific answers. She asked whether there would be any impact on Opposition days. The answer is categorically no. The Standing Orders that relate to Opposition days are not to be changed, so there is no change to the present position. She asked me to confirm whether there will be substantive business to address in September and pointed out that we have recently had several general debates—which, in fact, I think the House has welcomed. I think it is equally fair to say to her that we are in the immediate aftermath of the Queen’s Speech and it is necessary to get legislation right. One of the commitments we have made as a Government is not to present to the House legislation that is not in a fit state to be considered by it, because we felt that that was one of the failings of the previous Government. Very often there were subsequent amendments at later stages in a Bill’s progress simply because the preparatory work was not done. I repeat again, however, that it is our intention to bring substantive business before the House in September, if the House agrees to meet in September, which is subject to a decision this evening.
The right hon. Lady was intervened on by her party colleague the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), who made the valuable point that we need to get the entire parliamentary calendar right. In respect of this evening’s motions, we are talking about what we will do in September this year, but I am perfectly well aware that there are Members on both sides of the House who will want not only a degree of certainty about the future calendar of the House, but to express their views and concerns about their family circumstances, such as Scottish school holidays not coinciding with English school holidays. It is right for the House to consider that, and I hope we will be able to consult widely on what ought to be the future shape of the parliamentary calendar and bring back proposals that try as far as possible to accommodate the various different interests of Members of all parties.
The right hon. Lady asked about the costs of bringing the House back in September, and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He has expertise in this area, and I am grateful to him for his comments because he perfectly sensibly set out possible difficulties with a September sitting. I remember the last time we tried September sittings, and I do not think the arrangements behind the scenes lived up to the expectations of the House. In fact, I would go further and say that there was a suspicion that in some cases the maintenance that took place was planned to cause the maximum disruption to Members during that September sitting, rather than the minimum; that was certainly the way it seemed. I accept, however, that this is a difficult and complex building, and that it has to be maintained properly. We must take careful note of the hon. Gentleman’s quite proper warnings that if we are going to meet regularly in September, we have to organise House maintenance and other works around that, and that we need proper forward planning to achieve that and we need to do so on the basis of proper advice. Those are perfectly sensible points.
On the specific point about the maintenance contracts, the right hon. Lady will recall that Mr Speaker wrote to all the parties following the decisions in February and March indicating that the House may wish to sit in September and saying that the possibility of September sittings would be taken into account in the organisation of contracts. I hope that that will be the case and that any disruption to those contracts will be kept to a minimum.
On the costs of a September sitting, I should point out that of course it costs the same for Members to sit regardless of the time of year. The total number of days that we are sitting is the relevant factor, not the dates on which we sit.
Mr Betts
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, cost is an important issue, particularly with regard to maintenance and forward planning. When he looks further into this for future years, will he ensure that the Officers are allowed to produce their advice independently and that it goes to the appropriate Committees, and also that all Members of the House have access to the advice that is given about the costs and the advisability of postponing maintenance programmes and not carrying them out properly as Officers advise that they should be carried out?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not a member of the House of Commons Commission and I do not wish to tread on its toes, but what he says makes perfect sense to me and I shall ensure that that is communicated to members of the Commission.
Business of the House
Clive Betts Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I recall the hon. Gentleman answering business questions in the previous Parliament, when the Leader of the House was not here, and using some of the expressions that I may have used this morning. However, on his substantive point, there was nothing in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that announced any change of Government policy. It was a scene-setting speech about his approach to welfare reform, and it was perfectly appropriate for him to make his speech in that forum. He will appear before the House in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when the hon. Gentleman can press him further.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
This morning a journalist on the Sheffield Star, Richard Marsden, rang to inform me that a meeting to which local councillors in the east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber had been invited to discuss the proposed route of the high-speed rail link to Sheffield and Leeds had been cancelled. That seems to be the clearest indication that the Government have decided to abandon the high-speed rail route to Sheffield and Leeds, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has abandoned my city of Sheffield. Once again a decision has been made with no statement to this House. Could we rectify the situation at the first instance?
Sir George Young
I am always cautious when a reporter rings me up with a story, and I do not always believe everything that I am told. However, I will make some inquiries about the hon. Gentleman’s point and get somebody from the Department for Transport to contact him as soon as they can.