Valedictory Debate

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I will be the frank with the House: it will be a great wrench to leave this place after 27 years. You know what they say, Madam Deputy Speaker: folks are often kindest when they know you are on your way out, and there have been occasions in the past week since I announced my intention to step down when I have felt that I have been granted the privilege of attending my own funeral oration without the need to arrive in a hearse.

This afternoon, I wish to say a few brief words of thanks and to offer an expression of some hopes for the future of this place.

My chief thanks must go to my constituents in Aylesbury who have returned me as their Member of Parliament in seven successive general elections. I have to say that, when I was first selected and then elected, I was somewhat taken aback to read and research the tremendous history of my predecessors from John Hampden to Benjamin Disraeli, but prime among whom was John Wilkes, that great champion of press freedom. His first term in Parliament was as the Member for Aylesbury, but it was said of him by Edward Gibbon that he was a

“thorough profligate in principle as in practice … His life stained with every vice and his conversation full of blasphemy and bawdy.”

I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would always ensure that none of us here these days conspired to follow John Wilkes’ example in that respect.

Despite the stereotype that I think does exist in parts of the country about leafy Buckinghamshire and quaint market towns, Aylesbury is a very diverse community. The town itself is one of the fastest growing urban centres anywhere in the United Kingdom, and although I will not cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) on the subject HS2, I will say that with residential growth need to go road and rail infrastructure and infrastructure that actually serves the local residents rather than infra- structure that bypasses them entirely.

Alongside that vibrant, very diverse town—a town where in individual estates, such as Southcourt and Quarrendon, one finds in microcosm all the urban problems and challenges with which Members of the House who represent inner urban seats will be familiar—is one of the most glorious stretches of countryside of the Chilterns and the Vale of Aylesbury. There is the extra piquancy, as the Member for Aylesbury and, at different times, either representing or being very close to Chequers, of being able to pick up—usually within about a week of whichever Prime Minister has been visiting particular shops or beauty salons or hairdressers—exactly what the Head of the Government at any particular time has been doing at the weekend.

It is a constituency, which, like our country, has changed a lot in the past quarter of a century. That was somehow summed up for me by my final constituency engagement on Saturday evening. It took place in the deepest rural part of my constituency at Radnage village hall. The hall was packed for a fundraising dinner to aid Nepal, and was presided over and inspired by Navin Gurung, the Gurkha landlord of the pub in the next village of Stokenchurch. Somehow, what summed up the evening for me was the spectacle at one moment of a Nepali traditional dancer performing her dance in front of a table containing the familiar range of bottles for the forthcoming raffle, behind which was the millennium mosaic for the village of Radnage, depicting red kites flying over the Chilterns and the beech woodlands and horse riders and hikers crossing the fields. Somehow, that image spoke to me volumes about my constituency and about our country—a country that can be at ease with itself in its modern diversity, where it is possible for people to feel that they are citizens of somewhere, and that they are rooted in a particular place and a particular heritage, but are also open to embrace and to learn from the experience and the traditions of others who also make up our country.

As well as thanking my constituents, I want also to thank the staff of the House, as others have done. I learned, particularly as Leader of the House from 2017, how much we owe to all our staff. All of us as Members know of the service that is given to us by the Library staff, the Doorkeepers and Badge Messengers, the Clerks—the Clerks from whom I learned so much in particular about drafting and parliamentary tactics during my 11 years on the Opposition Front Bench—and the catering staff, particularly the staff of the Members’ Tea Room, who somehow always manage to remain calm and cheerful despite the pressure that we on these Green Benches often put them under.

My final point is about the future of this place. We speak often about restoration and renewal, and I think we need to look beyond just the restoration and renewal of the fabric and the services—important though I believe that to be—to the restoration and renewal of the culture of the House of Commons. For what is the purpose of this place? If it is anything, it is surely to provide the forum in which the passions, fierce controversies and conflicting opinions in our country are represented, reflected and resolved in debate and votes—both in the Chamber and in Committee.

I believe that the conventions that we seek to stick to here—the rules of unparliamentary language, the fact that we refer to each other by constituency rather than name, and even the rather murky understandings that govern the relationships between Government and Opposition usual channels—are all important in trying to provide a culture within which very fierce political disagreements can be expressed in a form that is civil and democratic, and actually shows to ourselves and to those we represent that we can and should resolve such differences democratically through debate, not out in the streets. And that involves respect between people of different parties.

I was told soon after I came here the old story of the new bright young thruster taking his place on the Benches beside an experienced elder colleague. The young man said, as the Opposition Benches filled up on the other side of the Chamber, “Ah, I see that the enemy is here in strength”, to which his senior colleague replied, “Young man, those are your political opponents; your enemies you will find on the Benches beside and behind you.”

I believe that the House of Commons at its best recognises that there can be the most serious and principled disagreement about both values and policies, but which does not see such political differences as tantamount to our opponent somehow being wicked or lacking in integrity. I think and hope that the next Parliament will make a deliberate effort to avoid the language of “traitors”, “betrayal”, “vermin” and “enemies of the people.” To overcome some of the ills that beset politics in this country at the moment will take more than an effort by Members of this House—there will be things to be done by editors and internet service providers as well. However, a start can and should be made here, and that needs to start with a recognition on all sides that restoring and renewing the reputation and standing of this place begins when Members on both sides—leaders and Members of all parties—manage to find a way again in which we can express vehemently our support for or opposition to the particular policies that we debate, while at the same time respecting the integrity and fundamental good motives of our opponents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid that we now have to have a time limit of eight minutes.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is not a point of order, and I am not going to spend any time on it because a lot of people want to speak. There is no more courteous a Minister in this place than this Minister.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given way a number of times already, and I want to make some progress. I certainly intend to give way again, but I am conscious that we have finite time available for the debate, and the time taken up by taking interventions is speaking time taken away from Back Benchers.

Network Rail judged in this case that Carillion was best placed to do the work, because it had been engaged on the project for three years already and had completed all the design work successfully. By agreement with the official receiver, former Carillion employees and suppliers continue to work on these rail projects, and today they are progressing as planned.

Since the liquidation on 15 January, the Government have responded promptly and appropriately, supporting the official receiver to manage the liquidation. We have also made funds available to allow an orderly wind-down of the company’s affairs. It is worth my explaining that this company was in such trouble that it could not even fund its own administration. If the Government had not stepped in and agreed to cover the costs of the official receiver, there would have been a real threat to public services in schools, hospitals and prisons. Staff would not have come to work last Monday, as they would not have been paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The practical advice I would give is to go to the website operated by special managers on behalf of the official receiver. There are links for the various categories of people affected, so those SMEs should follow the one for suppliers or subcontractors for advice and frequently asked questions. If they have specific concerns there is an email link to make direct contact with the special managers. That is the best way forward, because every case is slightly different.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but there has been some consternation about the taking of interventions. The Minister has been quite generous in doing so. Twenty people wish to speak in the debate. There is an hour and 31 and a half minutes left. Members will also wish to hear the winding-up speeches. Some people have been sitting patiently in the Chamber all afternoon. The prospective limit on speeches at the moment is three minutes, but it is likely to go down, and some people will not have an opportunity to speak at all, so let us allow the Minister to say what he has to say.

[Mr Lidington]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to make progress.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will provide practical advice and guidance to those affected through its Business Payment Support Service. That may include help such as agreeing instalment arrangements, suspending any debt collection proceedings and reducing payments on account.

I should say a brief word about the concerns of members of Carillion’s defined-benefit pension schemes who, understandably, are seriously worried at this time. Existing pensioners will continue to receive their pensions at agreed levels, but the significant funding deficit in Carillion funds will mean that some future pensioners will see their pensions reduced. At present, seven Carillon schemes, covering 6,000 members, have moved to the Pension Protection Fund assessment period, which occurs automatically when a sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. The remaining 21,000 members are in schemes that have at least one sponsor not in insolvency and are therefore not in the PPF. When a scheme moves into the PPF, the worst-case scenario is that the fund ensures that all pensions in payment continue to be paid at 100% of their value, and people who have benefits in such schemes for the future will receive those benefits at 90%, at least, of their expected value, subject to an overall ceiling on the amount that any individual can receive from a pension.

The Prime Minister restated on Sunday that the Government will shortly consult on tough new rules to tackle the behaviour of executives who try to line their own pockets by putting their workers’ pensions at risk—behaviour that she rightly labelled

“an unacceptable abuse that we will end”.

The official receiver has also taken immediate action to stop severance and bonus payments to former Carillion directors.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Insolvency Service and the official receiver asking that their statutory investigation into the conduct of Carillion’s directors is fast-tracked and extended in scope to include previous directors. He has also asked the Financial Reporting Council to conduct an investigation into the preparation of Carillion’s accounts past and present as well as the conduct of the company’s auditors. I can assure the House that no payments have been made to board directors or the former directors who had severance agreements since the date of liquidation. Directors with such severance agreements became unsecured creditors from the moment of liquidation.

Finally, in his opening remarks the hon. Member for Hemsworth touched—probably more than touched—on the overall questions about the outsourcing policy of this and other Governments. It is worth pointing out that outsourcing, whether in construction or the provision of services, is something that successive Governments—Labour, coalition or Conservative—have been doing since the 1990s. The services provided to the public sector by private companies include IT, back-office services, facilities management and other business services, such as running call centres. In many cases, those services have now been delivered by private sector companies for 10 or 20 years, and many have built up specialist expertise, skilled staff and investment to deliver public sector contracts.

This is a matter not just of cost, but of quality and innovation. If we look at a project such as Crossrail—the largest infrastructure project in Europe—that railway will open on time and on budget later this year. To deliver that project on time and within budget, Network Rail and Transport for London work with a huge range of private sector companies—including Costain, BAM Nuttall, Balfour Beatty, Morgan Sindall and others—and use their specialist expertise, which is something, frankly, that civil servants are not trained to have.

I could list a long catalogue of examples of such successful use of private sector companies to deliver capital investment into our hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure and successfully to deliver the provision of public services in all aspects of the public sector. What I found to be such a pity about the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was that he resorted to ideology, instead of looking at the people—our constituents—who actually use the services and who benefit from the better value for money and innovative quality that private sector contractors are able to bring, and have brought successfully, to that work.

Not only that, but in an enchanting display, the hon. Gentleman disavowed his party’s entire history of 13 years in government. Let us not forget that the majority of outsourcing in the NHS took place under the Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, as part of an initiative that was championed, in particular, by the current Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Let us look at what the Labour party has said since it left office. The shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary praised Carillion as an example of “good public procurement practice”, and the shadow Foreign Secretary praised it for offering apprenticeships to her constituents. The shadow Housing Secretary has said that PFI helps to deliver better and more cost-effective public services, and the shadow International Trade Secretary described it as

“a staggering investment in the future of…children and…excellence”.—[Official Report, 15 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 308.]

The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary said PFI provided “good value for money”. [Hon. Members: “When?”] It is very interesting that Labour Members feel they have to conform with the new dear leadership that the hon. Member for Hemsworth wanted to celebrate, but they should have the courage of the convictions they expressed when in office and since about the value of a proper constructive partnership between the public and private sectors in the interests of the constituents we are sent here to represent.

The shadow Health Secretary says that NHS experts accept that only a “handful” of PFI contracts are causing hospital trusts a significant problem. Labour council leaders in Manchester, Birmingham and Hounslow have praised public-private partnerships for delivering growth and urban regeneration in their areas. For all the denunciations of Carillion, one third of the contracts that the state sector still had with it at the time of its liquidation were awarded by the Labour Governments of the early 2000s—Labour Governments in which the hon. Member for Hemsworth served as Gordon Brown’s right-hand man in No. 10 when that outsourcing work was at its zenith.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the public sector continues to benefit from the best of private sector innovation and skills. We do not put ideology first; we put the service user and the citizen first. That is the policy that the Government are committed to and which we intend to continue.

Sentencing

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We will obviously ensure, as we work through the details, that we have safeguards against any kind of electoral fraud. It is certainly our intention that for people on temporary licence—like people on home detention curfew under the current arrangements—the franchise would exist on polling day on the assumption that those people would be out of prison on that day. We will certainly be working through the details, following what I hope will be the successful outcome from the Committee of Ministers meeting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience goes to James Cleverly.

Points of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point of administration, and it might be that the Leader of the House would like to say something further to the point of order.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely concede that it is a perfectly reasonable request, and I will make sure that that happens.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, that was not a point of order for the Chair, but we are having a very well-balanced session of points of order.

EU-Turkey Agreement

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable and important point. Like the United Kingdom, Ireland is not in Schengen and therefore not obliged to participate in any visa liberalisation. We keep in close contact with the authorities in Dublin, because the existence of the common travel area means that we need to ensure that we take account of each other’s decisions on this matter. I do not anticipate any difficulties in this regard—we normally think pretty much alike—but my hon. Friend is right to register that this is an issue that we need to keep in mind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for perseverance and patience goes to Mr Marcus Fysh.

Commission Work Programme 2014

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but may I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am conscious of the fact that we have a limited amount of time for the debate. There are a number of Members on both sides of the House who want to participate, so while I shall try to give way wherever possible I am conscious of the need to allow others to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The Minister is absolutely right, and he has been most courteous to the House. I trust that other Members will be courteous to the House in keeping interventions brief.

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).

[Mr Lidington]

I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. If he directs his attention to the Government motion and, for that matter, to the European Scrutiny Committee report referring the document for debate, he will find that nowhere in the motion or the report is there any reference to letters from any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House. I propose to concentrate on the matters that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred to the House for attention and consideration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. May I again reflect what the Minister has said? The matter before us does not concern letters to the Prime Minister. Members are required to stick to the matter before us.

[Mr Lidington]

This year, a new European Commission will take office. An important task is therefore to focus on those areas of the work programme that the United Kingdom Government would like to see as continued priorities for the next European Commission. It should come as no surprise to the House if I say that the Government’s priority is focusing on measures that encourage growth and jobs, and which are intended to deepen the single market, and on better and less costly and burdensome regulation so that we can free businesses in Britain and throughout Europe to compete vigorously in the global marketplace.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He knows that it is not a point on which I should rule from the Chair. The Minister has been speaking for only a minute or two. He is in the opening stages of his speech and I am sure that he will take interventions when it becomes appropriate.

[Mr Lidington]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Amendments 16, 64 and 65 propose detailed rules for the conduct of the referendum, but these kinds of detailed arrangements will be dealt with in secondary legislation, provision for which is already included in the Bill. Amendment 61 would require the Government to consult the devolved Administrations. Clearly, any Government would take careful account of the situation in the three devolved areas, but we are talking about the electorate of the entire United Kingdom on a subject that is explicitly and unquestionably a reserved, non-devolved matter, so I believe it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement in the Bill. Amendment 85 would make voting compulsory. I disagree with the amendment. Voting should be a matter of civic responsibility and pride, not something enforced under threat of penalty.

If I dig deep into my reserves of good will, I might just, even now, be persuaded that these amendments were tabled with good intentions, but I think they are, for the most part, otiose. I disagree with them and hope that their proposers will, on reflection, not press them.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

They have not, but I am sure the promoter of the Bill will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), and he will have plenty of time to deal with it in the usual course of the debate.

[Mr Lidington]

The amendments in the second group fall into four broad categories. First, there is the amendment that would provide for an additional consultation process on the referendum question, going beyond what is set out and what has already been undertaken. The key point that I want to make is that it has been normal practice under successive Governments for a referendum question to be spelled out very clearly on the face of the Bill that authorises that referendum, and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) therefore follows that established practice.

Secondly, amendment 71 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) seeks to add to the requirements for when the power to set the date of the referendum is used. The amendment specifies that the Secretary of State could appoint only the day for the referendum that was specified in a resolution of each House. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that under clause 1(6) the Bill already requires the order to be approved in draft by a resolution of each House, and that draft would include the date of the referendum.

The third category of amendments deals with the languages in which the question should be posed. We have amendments before us dealing with both the Welsh language and Scots Gaelic. Amendment 37, which seeks to substitute the phrase “Welsh translation” for the phrase “Welsh version”, would have no substantive legal effect. It would not serve any particular purpose. It would not change anything. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) to the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which authorised the referendum on the alternative vote system for the House of Commons, used the term “Welsh version” rather than “Welsh translation”. Again, we are going by established precedent.

Cross-border Travel (Spain/Gibraltar)

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We have not called in the Spanish ambassador because, as I said in my earlier remarks, this was raised directly with the Spanish Government at a significantly higher level.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Although the House will appreciate that the Minister is doing all that he can in negotiations with the Spanish Government, will he agree with most Members of the House that the situation in Gibraltar is simply unacceptable? While people in Madrid may give assurances that the Spanish Government are acting in a way that is acceptable to the UK Government, what actually happens day to day is that the Guardia Civil under local management in Algeciras and La Línea do whatever they wish, not only on the border but in making incursions by sea into British Gibraltar territorial waters whenever they wish to do so and in a way that is deliberately designed to make life difficult for the people and Government of Gibraltar. If the Minister can assure the House that he understands that and will make it clear to the Government of Spain, we will be happy.

[Mr Lidington]

Where there is a genuine case for increased checks at the border because of an acknowledged need to combat smuggling or other criminal activity, that might be fair. In such a case, however, we would expect the Spanish authorities to be open with the Government of Gibraltar about those circumstances, but that has not been the case hitherto in this instance.

So far as maritime incursions are concerned, we are absolutely confident of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over British Gibraltar territorial waters, which is why the Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil and other Spanish state vessels whenever they make unlawful maritime incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters. We back that up through formal diplomatic protests to the Spanish Government about all unlawful incursions. Those challenges and protests make it clear that such incursions are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Debate between Eleanor Laing and David Lidington

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Ten years ago I had the honour of accompanying the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) as an observer of the referendum that took place in Gibraltar, which has been very important to its subsequent development. May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that steps should be taken to ensure that observers are available from many countries of the world so that the result of the democratically organised referendum in the Falklands can be spread far and wide and no one can argue with its result?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes her point with great clarity. I support the thrust of what she says.