Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we are doing. We are introducing a general anti-avoidance rule—something that he, in 13 years of Labour Government, never managed to do. We will do it in three.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

We were all inspired by the amazing London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, in an incredible summer of sport, but it is so important to get people involved in grass-roots community sport. Will the Prime Minister meet me, the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the county sports partnership network and Sport England to discuss the “Be Inspired, Get Involved” initiative, the first fair of which is this evening in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend about this issue. It is important that we take the legacy of the Olympics and turn it into increased rates of participation. That means, yes, working with the organisations that he spoke about, but also recognising the many heroes and heroines right around our country who run the Saturday morning football clubs, rugby clubs and cricket clubs. It is those clubs that provide so much of the answer for getting more sport into our communities and more sport into our schools as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate concern about an important area of Government policy, but he is just plain wrong when he says that money is being taken away from the EIG. We made it clear that some of the money under the EIG umbrella was dedicated to the two-year-olds offer. As he knows, that is a new offer of 15 hours’ pre-school support for two-year-olds from the most deprived families in this country. It is a radical and progressive step towards greater social mobility and early intervention. We have retained the total amount of money for early intervention, but allowed the EIG to be used in a more flexible way. I ask him not to be preoccupied with which pot the money is in, but to focus on the fact that we will do big progressive things with exactly the same amount of money.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Specialist manufacturing is a huge growth opportunity for the economy. Surgical Innovations in my constituency is a great example of that. It is receiving £4.91 million from the regional growth fund. Will my right hon. Friend say when we can expect the next round to be announced, so that we can hear more good news stories like that?

House of Lords Reform Bill

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Because, as I have explained, the primary legislation remains in place, and—this is not rocket science—there is clearly no agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in the coalition Government to repeal that primary legislation, so it stands. I happen to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, given that the result of the final vote is a foregone conclusion, we might as well not push the issue to a vote; but, perfectly understandably, other members of the Government want to do so. I have made it crystal clear what my position and that of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will be when that vote occurs.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his robust stance on the boundary changes. I was delighted by that and remind him that a not inconsiderable number of Conservative Members were also delighted by his announcement. In light of his dignified and statesman-like statement accepting that House of Lords reform will not happen, is it not time for the Prime Minister to follow suit and make a similarly dignified statement to say that he accepts that the boundary changes will not happen, because they will not?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am at risk of carbon-copying my previous answers. The legislation on boundary reviews stands, so the process continues. It is not in my power to stop that without reversing the primary legislation altogether. When and if the matter comes to a vote, I have made it clear what the voting intentions of the Members of my party within the coalition Government will be.

Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. A situation might arise in which a Minister who has not behaved very well is a personal friend of the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister could then say to the Minister, “Well, the investigation wasn’t instigated by me. It was instigated independently, and I have to accept the advice of the report. It is not me who is causing you difficulty; it’s the investigation by the independent adviser.”

In every way, therefore, this proposal is a progressive advance that is in keeping with the spirit of the times. I hope that in future more of the Prime Minister’s current powers will be devolved.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will not put the clock on you, Mr Mulholland, but I ask you to resume your seat at 1.58 pm.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, and I am very proud that we have come up with this sensible and important proposal. It is hugely important for Parliament, as it addresses the holding of Ministers to account, which is one of our key roles. We must remember that it is important outside this place, too; it is important to ordinary people, who saw the unseemly events of the past few months and have therefore come to regard the current system of accountability as wholly inadequate. Recent episodes have also left a nasty taste in the mouths of Members on both sides of the House, who agree that the current situation is wholly unacceptable.

When Sir Alex Allan appeared before our Committee, we had what can only be described as a wholly unsatisfactory discussion with him in respect of both the realities of the role and, I am afraid, our confidence in his ability to perform it as it should be performed, rather than as it is, sadly, currently performed.

We must remember that this proposal was introduced by the previous Government. In response to the predecessor Committee’s previous report on the issue, they made it clear that the appointment would be a personal one by the Prime Minister and that he would need to have confidence that the person appointed would be able to provide independent and impartial advice.

We want the Minister to say that the Government will accept our sensible proposal, and we also want the Opposition to agree to it; they must accept the original principles of this new office as set out under the last Government. I have asked the same of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that he is happy to do so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

The full title of this post is “the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests” but the simple reality is that it is the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests. The current title is fraudulent and misleading to Parliament and the public. If these reforms are not accepted and implemented, the Government should at least have the decency to change the title to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

Sir Alex Allan was appointed to the post with no open competition. We do not believe anyone else was even in the frame for the job, and there was no detail whatever on the process he went through. That is simply unacceptable.

Our proposal is based on an extremely simple idea. If—free from political interference and regardless of any media witch hunt—the independent adviser believes there is sufficient genuine evidence for an investigation, he should intervene. That is all we are asking for.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time is up. I call Gareth Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

As I think I set out earlier, we did take action when we were in government, and the House is better for it. However, I want to come to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made not only in this debate but in the Public Administration Committee’s hearings.

There is a particular outstanding question that the Prime Minister still needs to answer, and perhaps the Minister can give us some clarity on it. Why is it appropriate for the independent adviser to be used in the case of the noble Baroness Warsi and not that of the Culture Secretary? I also have a series of questions on which I would welcome the views of the Chair of the Public Administration Committee in his concluding remarks. As I hope I made clear, I think some further work by his Committee in this area would be useful for the whole House, not least in questioning the current ministerial adviser on his lack of consultation in the case of the Culture Secretary.

The new independent adviser told the Committee when giving evidence that he had made the point to the new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, that

“there are advantages to him in bringing the Adviser in early and whenever major issues arise.”

That appears at odds with the comment in a letter from Sir Alex that was deposited in the Library, accepting the Prime Minister’s decision not to refer the case and noting the work of the Leveson inquiry, and with the clear view of Sir Brian Leveson that his inquiry was not an appropriate place for the Secretary of State’s conduct to be investigated. I raise this question not in any way to express doubt about Sir Alex’s capacity or commitment, but to inquire whether the Committee will continue to explore the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the ministerial adviser to be brought in, and to suggest—in a spirit of helpfulness, I hope—that Sir Alex’s evidence may well be helpful in that context.

Will the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee be summoning the Cabinet Secretary to explore the extent to which there was consultation with Sir Alex over the Culture Secretary’s case? In my intervention on the Chairman, I raised the possibility of further work by his Committee in this area, highlighting two issues that Sir Philip Mawer raised, in part in answer to some questions from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns): whether suspension of a Minister is really possible during a code investigation in practical political terms; and the possibility of the Committee helping to establish a set of “ground rules”—his words—for a situation where an investigation is under way and the media is in full pursuit of that Minister.

The Opposition will listen carefully to the position and argument that the Minister, and indeed the Public Administration Committee Chairman, develop. We will want to consider the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, which it is a pity was not available for today’s debate. I have genuinely an open mind on this issue. The Opposition’s instinct is that further work is required.

This debate is born out of frustration with the Prime Minister’s handling of his responsibility for the ministerial code.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I am winding up.

The failure to use the independent adviser in the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset, compounded by the failure to contemplate using him in the case of the Culture Secretary, provides the context for this debate. Sadly, it is yet another debate called in this great House because of the errors of judgment of the current Prime Minister.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for clarifying the Labour party’s position on this issue—or not. I would like to begin by registering my personal respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the other members of his Committee for their persistence on this matter. I note carefully his comment that that persistence is not going away. I also note, on the Government’s behalf, that the motion has cross-party support and has been signed by a number of distinguished Chairmen of Select Committees. This short debate is therefore one the Government must listen to, and I believe are listening to, carefully, and we will consider carefully what has come out of it.

I think it would be helpful if I restated an important principle that the Labour party also clung to in its 13 years in power: when it comes to the ministerial code, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) pointed out. The bottom line is that Ministers remain in office only for as long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He or she decides, and is accountable to Parliament for those decisions.

The advent of an independent adviser is clearly welcome—although the Labour party seemed to fight it for many years—and he or she clearly has an important role. It is worth clarifying that there are two aspects to the role, both of which are important. One part of the role is, at the request of the Prime Minister, to look into allegations of breaches of the ministerial code, if the Prime Minister thinks that is necessary, and to advise the Prime Minister. But it is for the Prime Minister to take this decision and be accountable for it. In some cases, the Prime Minister will have no need to ask for advice, as the issues will be clear. In other cases, there may be the need for further investigation before the Prime Minister can take a decision. In those instances, he will refer to the independent adviser.

It is to misunderstand the intended role of the independent adviser to suggest that he or she should be able to instigate his or her own investigations. The adviser is there, personally appointed by the Prime Minister, to advise the Prime Minister on allegations of breaches of the code, if the Prime Minister thinks it is necessary. I shall now read out an important quote from the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Liaison Committee on 3 July:

“The ministerial adviser on interests is there to advise the Prime Minister; he gives the advice and the Prime Minister has to make the decision.”

There has been no change in approach; this is the same practice that existed under the previous Government.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend, as he is actually dealing with the issue, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) in his extraordinary and pathetic contribution. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if the independent adviser had the powers we are talking about, he himself would say that there is not the evidence to proceed with an inquiry? The proposed approach would do that job and give the public confidence that there was no need for an inquiry in the first place.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I can see the passion with which he makes his argument, but the important principle is who is ultimately responsible, and that is the Prime Minister.

Debate on the Address

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I think that Members of all parties would endorse the support of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for the Queen’s Speech proposal to introduce legislation to establish an independent adjudicator to ensure that supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers. That is clearly one of many proposals that will have all-party support.

In reflecting on the Queen’s Speech, it is probably sensible to consider where we are and where we have been. In recalling where we are, it is important to remember that the Prime Minister’s party does not have a parliamentary majority. After the general election, it was clearly in the nation’s interest to form a coalition. A coalition, however, requires compromise every day. To govern, the Prime Minister has to agree policy initiatives with a political party very different from his own. In practice, the coalition is working a lot better than many would have imagined. The fact is that the Conservative party did not win enough seats or votes to enable us to deliver all our manifesto pledges. The solution is not to blame the coalition, but to seek to win more votes next time.

Notwithstanding the challenges of the coalition, the Government have, since the general election, embarked on a vast reforming programme unprecedented in modern times to reduce the structural deficit and to put through reforms of the NHS that will enable GPs better to design local NHS services for their patients. The Government have reformed primary and secondary education, introduced a new system of university tuition fees and completely overhauled the welfare system to ensure that as many people as possible can live responsible and worthwhile lives free of state dependency. The Government have capped housing benefit and passed the European Union Act 2011 so that in future any EU treaty that transfers powers to the European Union will be subject to a referendum, and never again will a Government be able to surrender sovereignty to Brussels without the full consent of the British people. On Europe, too, the Prime Minister and the Government have vetoed the fiscal pact. Ministers have swept away pages and pages of planning regulations, but in so doing have still managed to protect the green belt, while providing local councillors and local communities with the opportunity to design and develop their own local plans free of top-down Whitehall directives such as regional spatial strategies.

The Government are introducing elected police commissioners and reforming public sector pensions that would otherwise become unaffordable and unsustainable. Importantly, the Government have taken millions of the low-paid out of income tax and have cut corporation tax. We inherited corporation tax at 28% , but by 2014, it will be reduced to 22%. As a result, the UK will have the lowest main corporation tax rate in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. To help businesses further, the Government have introduced a £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme to get cheaper loans to businesses. These have been bold reforms and they have all been achieved without a Conservative majority.

It is not only that the Prime Minister has had to govern with a party that does not have a parliamentary majority, as the second reality is that the Government have no money—and it is not unreasonable to think that a Government with no majority and no money will have problems. We should never forget that the Labour Government left Britain with a deficit that, at £160 billion, was bigger than Greece’s. The Labour Government gave us the longest and deepest recession on record, so that we were one of the first countries into recession and one of the last countries coming out of recession. We should never forget the telling letter left to his successor by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne):

“Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”

That pithy 13-word message—whether it was tongue in cheek or not—well summed up the 13 years of the Labour Government.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend think it important to remind the House and the country that we are only two years into this historic coalition Government, and considering the economic mess that we were left, it is remarkable how many positive things are in this Queen’s Speech?

[Tony Baldry]

Yes, this Government have probably achieved more in two years than the Blair Government achieved in the whole of their first term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point, but does she also agree that we should have a fairer system of voting for Members of both Houses of Parliament?

[Meg Hillier]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue for a short while?

One of my principal objections to the current House of Lords reform proposals is that I do not agree with the argument that we are making the House of Lords more accountable by having Members elected for a single term of 15 years without being able to stand for re-election. I cannot see how, in a democratic system, that is accountable. Members of the House of Commons have to face the electorate once every five years, and we have witnessed colleagues losing their seats as the electors have made that decision based either on the individual or their party. That is true accountability, although it has been weakened by proposals to change the boundaries every five years, as some electors will therefore never have the chance to vote again for the MP who has represented them. The Government are doing great damage by reducing the accountability of the Members of both Houses. That is a backward step, but it is being dressed up as reform. We must reflect and improve on these proposals if we are to have real change.

I come at this subject as a democrat. I believe that it is beyond the pale to have even an element of heredity in the House of Lords, and that that is rightly out of kilter with modern attitudes. We must not rush headlong into trying to improve the situation and see any change as an improvement. Instead, we must take measured steps and ensure that Parliament properly represents the people, and that we do not fill the House of Lords with stooges who have been selected by party leaders and who never have to face the electorate.

Although I look forward to our debates on this subject, I have to say that it was not raised even once on the doorsteps in my constituency during the most recent election campaign. Indeed, I am usually out on doorsteps while on roving surgeries a couple of times every month, and the last time I canvassed opinion on this topic everybody said they supported a democratically elected House of Lords save for one person who was of Nigerian origin and believed there was some merit in the hereditary principle. His was a lone voice, however. We need democracy, but not in the way that is being proposed.

The Queen’s Speech was a big disappointment. When I was watching it, I suddenly realised that it was nearly over, but many of the issues I had hoped it would address had not been mentioned. It is flimsy and expresses no compelling vision of what the Government want to achieve for this country. We agree with the opening sentence, but its sentiments were not backed up by proposed legislation. There is also no strategic approach to the economic crisis. We repeatedly hear about the need to tackle the deficit, but there are other issues that need to be tackled alongside dealing appropriately with the Government’s finances.

The Queen’s Speech demonstrates that the Government are out of touch and unfair, and we are also increasingly seeing signs of incompetence. The Prime Minister acknowledged that the economy is a higher priority than House of Lords reform, but the Queen’s Speech does little to tackle the economic problems, and I am particularly concerned for the businesses in my constituency and about unemployment.

The unfairness is seen in the retention of the cut in the 50p tax rate, helping the top 1% of earners in this country, while many of my constituents are keen to work but are unable to find the extra eight hours they will need to continue to receive tax credits. At one end, therefore, families who are doing everything they should—they are working hard and trying to work more, but are unable to find those extra hours—are losing out. What they need is some extra hours from their employer, as it is currently very hard to find another job. At the other end, however, millionaires are saving thousands of pounds in tax. That does not strike me or my constituents as fair.

Fortunately for the Government, I do not have sufficient time to dwell on their increasing incompetence. I might mention, however, the border controls fiasco that has been going on since last autumn. It is continuing now, which is especially serious given that we are in the run-up to the Olympics. I might also mention the youth unemployment figures. The Government’s incompetence in that regard will affect a generation of our young people and their families. There are also the ministerial dalliances with BSkyB, which demonstrate a real lack of appropriateness, to put it politely.

There were some announcements in the Gracious Speech that I welcome. I have long been a supporter of the Green investment bank. My big concern is that it is being introduced too late, even though there will be £3 billion of funding—although not all of it is certain. Will the bank be able to move quickly enough to ensure we secure the green investment required to help businesses grow and create the jobs we so desperately need? The environmental ship might have already sailed to other ports in Germany, China and other countries, whose Governments are far ahead of ours.

I also welcome the flexible parental leave proposals. It is important that people have that choice, but it must be couched in the right way so that women do not feel forced to go back to work and pass over the care of the child, whom they may still be nursing, to their partner. The principle of allowing families freedom over how they manage their own affairs is important, however.

Overall, the Government’s economic policy is hurting and it is not working—not in my constituency. Unemployment is rising. It is the worst we have seen for 16 years and of course, youth unemployment—I am on the record as having spoken about this a number of times before—is a real scourge of our society.

There are a couple of proposals I welcome. I welcome the intention to ensure through the children and families Bill that there is an all-through assessment for children and young adults. Too often, my constituents have experienced breaks in the support for their children, either at the age at which they transfer to a different school or when they transition into adulthood. Personal budgets provide a real opportunity for those young people and their families to have control as long as there are safeguards for the many families with whom I deal who would not be able to manage those budgets themselves. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater and although I welcome the personal budgets, we must ensure that there is a safety net and support for those who are unable to do the necessary paperwork and to manage the employment side of it. The detail will matter if the good intentions in the Bill are to be met, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on my Front Bench to ensure that those needs are considered.

I hope that the children and families Bill will talk about ensuring that children are protected and supported. That seems to be the general feeling. I am concerned, however, that although the Government are considering protecting and supporting certain groups of children on the one hand, actions by other Ministers on safeguarding—such as the suggestion that faith leaders should be exempt from vetting and, if necessary, exempt from being barred from working with children—are a very worrying step. We must be vigilant about ensuring that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Government are very keen to talk about rolling back the frontiers of the state and rolling back red tape, but as far as the protection of children is concerned, when we put our children—and vulnerable adults, too—in the presence of a stranger, we need some surety that that stranger has been properly vetted. It is not acceptable to rule out one group simply on the basis that they are faith leaders.

Businesses in Hackney have been struggling for some time. We have had some great successes—Silicon roundabout is in my constituency—but they are largely small start-ups and are finding it hard to grow. We have some very innovative business models in a very innovative part of London, but businesses in Hackney are struggling to get loans and even, in many cases, an overdraft facility from their bank. The Prime Minister spoke earlier about Project Merlin, saying that it had worked and that the loan guarantee fund was generous. It is not so much the level of a loan that is an issue, however, but the fact that banks will not loan in the first place. There is an opportunity that has perhaps not yet been missed in the Gracious Speech—we will see whether it has when we have the detail of the legislation—to consider alternative funding methods for businesses. Innovators out there are prepared to fund innovative businesses in a different way and we must ensure that they are properly supported and regulated so that investors and businesses are protected. There are opportunities for more mutuals in the banking sector, which ought to focus on investment in their own areas, helped by their understanding of their locality. They would, of course, be owned by their members.

That brings me on to one thing that was missing from the Gracious Speech. As a Co-op and Labour MP, I was keen to hear the co-operatives consolidation Bill debated during the next Session, but it is not here. Where has that Bill gone? It would have been supported across the House. The previous Government did a great deal to change the law on co-operatives and to provide new legislation that made it easier to set them up, but as that was done piecemeal through different Acts of Parliament, there was room to bring it all together. Consolidation Bills, by their nature, are complicated and difficult, but it would have provided the platform for the introduction of yet more opportunities for mutuals and co-operatives. There is a feeling across this House, shared by members within every party—although it is not necessarily the view of every party—that there needs to be a different way of doing business in this country. If there is a better way of doing business than mutuals, which are owned by their members, who benefit from and see the direct outcomes of that ownership, I do not know what it is.

There is no commitment in the Queen’s Speech to introduce any mutual models at all, as far as we can see. The water Bill would have offered such an opportunity and the energy Bill might have offered opportunities for some mutual solutions, as would, of course, the banking Bill. We need new measures on demutualisation and we have already missed an opportunity through the selling off to the highest bidder, rather than remutualisation, of Northern Rock. If the House is united on the need for banking reform, why not join that up with the idea of the mutual model and ensure that businesses as well as individuals are supported by mutuals?

Another element missing from the Bill that is a concern to my constituents and to me is the antisocial behaviour legislation that we had hoped might be introduced. The message is very confused. One whole year ago, the Government’s consultation on antisocial behaviour finished. They have done the work, yet 12 months on there is no Bill in the Gracious Speech to deal with those issues. A year ago, the Government all but announced their intention to end antisocial behaviour orders, but there is no Bill to do that and the police and residents are left confused about where they stand.

The Government regularly pass the buck to local police forces when challenged on crime issues, but they are robbing them of the tools to do the job. We know that ASBOs require better enforcement and we accept that they are not perfect in every way, but they could be strengthened to deal better with the problem of repeat victimisation. The Government should be trying to build on what is in place and on what has been shown to work, rather than starting again from scratch. We hear that the Government has a plan for a community trigger, which would only guarantee action if five different households reported the same incident. For me, if one person complains, that incident of antisocial behaviour needs to be tackled. It should be taken seriously and investigated.

We also have an alphabet soup of other proposals. The crime prevention injunction and criminal behaviour orders do not do what they say on the tin. I know from experience with gang injunctions in Hackney that it can take a very long time for agencies on the ground to get used to the new powers, for the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with them properly, for courts to understand them and for them to embed. ASBOs might not have been perfect, but they were in the language of my constituents and of constituents up and down the country. People understood them and so did the system. To throw them out without having proper plans in place to replace them is a big mistake.

My constituency has a number of challenges. We have heard from others about youth unemployment. In my constituency, one in four young people under the age of 24 is out of work. Our overall unemployment rate is 12.7%. Those challenges have a major impact on child poverty. There are still children in my constituency who turn up to school in September after a long summer holiday malnourished, because their parents have chaotic lifestyles and have been unable to get them fed. We all support measures to get people into work, but to have a whole generation of young people who are unable to get work or work experience will, I fear, lead to greater challenges for their children.

I do not have time to go into the figures for the ethnic breakdown of unemployment, but let us just take the example of young black men. About 55% of young black men are out of work, which is a staggering figure and much higher than the general norm. It risks becoming a real divide in this country if it is not tackled. It might not be an issue for every hon. Member in this House—as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said, his is not a kaleidoscope county—but let me tell hon. Members that my constituency is a kaleidoscope constituency, as are many others. It is a great strength of our area, but we must not have one group of people so badly affected by Government policy.

Other issues have not been tackled. Housing benefit levels have been cut, rents have continued to rise by a great deal in my constituency and house prices have risen, too. That means that my constituents face a real challenge on housing and homes and nothing in this Queen’s Speech will tackle that, which is a serious mistake. It demonstrates again how the Government are very much out of touch with what really matters to people. Families want to be in a position to support themselves and my constituents’ requirements are very limited in many respects. They are not as demanding as they should be, I believe, but they want a job, a good school for their child, a health service that will work and to know that they can afford a roof over their heads. The job and the roof over their heads are particular challenges at the moment, so although we have these esoteric debates in the Westminster village about House of Lords reform—an issue not once raised on the doorstep—and as much as I think we need to reform the House of Lords, right now the energy of this place should be focused on how to move this country forward, invest in jobs and growth and ensure that we create job opportunities and homes for constituents in my constituency and up and down the country.

EU Council

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that the Deputy Prime Minister and I agreed the negotiating strategy for the European Council, and that is important because it was the whole Government who were doing it at the Council.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Prime Minister was negotiating as the Prime Minister of the coalition Government. Does he agree that now is not the time to listen to either those who say that we should leave the EU, or those who say that we should push into political and fiscal union, and can he tell the British people that he will stick to the coalition policies and get the economy back on its feet?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and absolutely confirm that that is the case. The coalition is united in wanting to have growth policies across Europe and in promoting the single market in a very active way, and I can guarantee that we will continue to do that.

Public Disorder

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action on the advice of Lord Hutton, the former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has written a very good report. He makes certain exceptions for uniformed services. It is a very sensible report that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will study.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

One of the many abhorrent aspects of the recent disorder was the threat of violence against our brave firefighters, and yet the relevant legislation is insufficiently clear. There is no specific offence of threatening a firefighter and the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 allows for only a £5,000 fine. Considering that the firefighters are defending not only homes and business but lives is it not now time to revisit this and make an appropriate and strong custodial sentence the presumption?

[The Prime Minister]

When we hear about people attacking firefighters who are trying to put out fires, it is absolutely appalling and unforgiveable that that can happen in our country. I know that the issue of giving specific public servants specific protection has been looked at in the past in criminal justice legislation and I dare say that we can look at it again, but I think that any court using its discretion and judgment would want to give a pretty exemplary sentence to anyone viciously minded enough to attack a firefighter when they are trying to put out a fire.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

All those meetings are now published. The hon. Gentleman can look on the internet and see every single meeting that I had. Perhaps when he does that, he might ask his good friend the Leader of the Opposition why he does not do the same thing.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Prime Minister was right to recall Parliament and is right to concentrate on the immediate questions that are being asked, but will he ensure that the Government commit to making sure that this does not happen again? That involves looking at the Companies Act 2006, because it seems absurd that we rightly have a crime of corporate manslaughter, yet directors of a company in which there has been complicit criminality currently face no sanctions.

[The Prime Minister]

I think we can come on to that in the debate, but there are some lessons to be learned for competition policy and media policy. I am sure that we will debate those later, and I will have some contributions to make on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department does not say that at all—it is not what is stated in the impact assessment that Ministers have signed up to. I do not believe either that that is what the article in the newspaper said. On enfranchisement, we are very clear: our proposals will make it easier for people who are entitled to be registered to be registered. He will know that we are carrying out data-matching pilots across the country, and we will take forward and roll out any lessons from that to make it easier for people who are eligible to be registered.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

5. What recent progress he has made on the reform of party funding; and if he will make a statement.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the timetable for the reform of party funding.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The Government are committed to work to reform party funding. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is conducting a review and the Government will consider its recommendations, alongside other relevant evidence before taking this forward.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the unseemly spectacle last week of union leaders criticising the Labour leadership for not overtly supporting the strikes while the Labour leadership looked uncomfortably at the floor shows exactly why we need to get big money out of party funding and why we need real reform?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree that it cannot be healthy in a democracy if any political party is over-reliant on one source of funding to the exclusion of others. [Hon. Members: “Michael Brown!”] It is worth saying that the current situation is unsustainable and has done damage to all political parties, which is why it is something that we should look to reform on a cross-party basis.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I must start by saying that I did not know that the word “majoritarian” existed until now, so, as a politics graduate, I have learned something new. I rise to speak in support of amendments 341 and 342. I am pleased to say that they are, in parliamentary terms and in common-sense terms, remarkably simple. Amendment 341 would simply delay the introduction of new boundaries following any boundary review, whatever its findings, until after the next but one general election. That would mean that the next election would be fought on the current boundaries, and that the new boundaries—whatever they might be—would be introduced afterwards, in time for the election in 10 years’ time, if we have fixed-term Parliaments.

Amendment 342 relates to the regularity of boundary changes. Redrawing the boundaries every five years, for every Parliament, is simply not sensible. I am happy to support the principle of having more equal constituencies, but the proposals as they are now worded show no recognition of the reality of the process of introducing boundary changes. Every boundary review and change incurs a significant cost, which we should surely be concerned about in a time of austerity. They also cause chaos for the constituents of all hon. Members around the country, and for all the local authorities that have to work out the boundaries. Recently, I found out that one of my local pubs had been wrongly put into Leeds Central as a result of the latest boundary changes.

This illustrates the point of amendment 341. We introduced significant boundary changes for the election that took place just six months ago, and to ask the people of this country to understand why we are now going to redraw them again, even for a good reason, is simply not common sense. It is simply not acceptable.

[Mrs Laing]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must accept that those boundary changes were based on figures collected almost 10 years ago. Also, does he accept the principle of the equalisation of the numbers of voters in constituencies?

[Greg Mulholland]

Forgive me, but I do not think the hon. Lady has been listening to my comments very well, because I just said that I supported the principle of having more equal constituencies. I support that aim, although I also support many of the caveats relating to common-sense, physical boundaries and to local determination which other amendments deal with. However, I support equalisation as a principle.

[Mrs Laing]

I was listening to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, and I am still listening, but he is contradicting himself. If he agrees with the principle of equalising the number of electors in each constituency, he must accept that populations move and that their numbers change, and that there must therefore be boundary changes. If he is simply arguing that they are inconvenient for the boundary commissions, I do not think his argument is very strong.

[Greg Mulholland]

I think the hon. Lady must be the only person in the Chamber who could possibly regard what I have said as a contradiction. I will tell the Committee who is inconvenienced by the boundary changes: it is the voters of this country, as well as Members of Parliament. There are constituents in this country who have been in four different constituencies in recent times. They simply do not know what parliamentary seat they are in, who their MP is or even who they will be allowed to support at the next election.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the sensible case for equalisation rather than the illogical case for it. Does he agree that if such a profound change were to take place and if it were the view of Parliament, it would be right and proper to bring the measure in over a longer and more considered period of time, not least because the Government’s proposal is not for an equalisation but for an equalisation plus or minus 5%? Thus a degree of discretion will be allowed, which is potentially arbitrary. It could be countered even on the principle of equalisation if there were the ability to have public inquiries and hearings based on the principle that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but let me make it clear again that I support the principle of having more equal constituencies. Indeed, we need to move towards such a system that recognises, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, that populations change. Clearly, that has to be recognised; it is why we have boundary changes now. It is also fair to say that those boundaries changes might be too infrequent and based on out-of-date data. However, that is an argument for having boundary changes every 10 years so that we have the same boundary at least for two consecutive general elections. Having different boundaries for every single general election is, frankly, absurd and would lead to utter electoral chaos.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The problem at the first redrawing would be one of the massive reconstruction of the whole country. With the second, third and subsequent redrawings, if there is such a word, there would be only marginal changes.

[Greg Mulholland]

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman makes my point because that huge initial change should not be rushed through, certainly not a mere five years after new constituency boundaries have been formed. He knows—I have said this to him in person—that I support his particular campaign for his area and his constituency to remain as one. He provides living proof of one of the very caveats I agree with to the principle of more equal constituencies, which I generally support.

[Naomi Long]

Another issue that has not been discussed in relation to changing boundaries more regularly is that the elections for this Parliament are out of sync with the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, for example, which happen between general elections but with the same boundaries. When the boundaries change, it can lead to the anomalous position whereby my constituents in Dundonald, for example, are part of the Belfast East parliamentary constituency for Westminster purposes—so I represent them—but they are represented by my Strangford colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are sometimes uncertain to which constituency they owe their loyalty and to whom they should go with their problems and difficulties. A level of confusion among the electorate is created. I think that is unhelpful if we want to get people more connected with politics, which is what will ultimately improve registration.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Lady reminds us that there are indeed many complications stemming from devolution in the three affected nations. As an English MP, however, my concern with devolution is that there is not yet a satisfactory solution for the English people at this stage—something for which I shall continue to push.

Whenever boundary changes are made or proposed, we see the disfranchisement of possibly hundreds of thousands of people. It results in two classes among the electorate. The first class comprises the people who can vote for someone again after the boundary changes are made; but then there are people in limbo in certain parts of our constituencies. We were their Member of Parliament leading up to the last election, but we knew and they knew that they could not vote for us. They could no longer realistically hold us to account. They could not realistically expect us to knock on their doors—again because they knew and we knew that they could not vote for us. They did not know who their candidates would be in the general election. That is chaos; it should not happen more frequently than once every 10 years. The idea of making boundary changes for every election is simply ridiculous. I hope that that point will be taken seriously on Report and in the other place.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Some Members may not be aware of the knock-on effects on constituencies. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) suggested that there might be marginal changes in subsequent boundary reviews. In fact, an urban extension might have an initial effect on the constituency involved and subsequent knock-on effects on others, and the change might be more radical each time a boundary was subjected to a review.

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I am amazed that the reality of boundary changes is being accepted by so few Members, despite the effects that it will have on their constituents.

As Members who served before the last general election know all too well, there is also a huge problem with parliamentary protocol, which causes all sorts of squabbles and spats. According to the democratic process, I, as a candidate, had every right to knock on doors in the bits of the constituencies next to mine where I would be asking people to vote for me; yet, theoretically, parliamentary protocol says that I should not do so. I am afraid that such matters have simply not been considered.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is not the reason why so many Government Members seem to have failed to notice that the Bill will have an enormous impact not just on seats in areas like mine in Wales—which will pay a heavy price—but on seats throughout England that they are being reassured by their Front Benchers that this is gerrymandering that will strip out Labour Members but not have a detrimental effect on Tory seats? The reality is very different. As the hon. Gentleman says, there will be an impact on every Member’s seat.

[Greg Mulholland]

I take issue with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We must stop this being a partisan, party political matter. We are talking about electoral, constitutional and parliamentary changes. They should be taken very seriously, and every Member should speak on that basis and that basis alone.

[Pete Wishart]

We are getting to the heart of the debate now. This is what it is all about. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is an in-built Labour advantage in the current arrangements, and the coalition are trying to deal with it. I am not in favour of retaining a Labour advantage in elections, because my party is at a disadvantage. Why is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?

[Greg Mulholland]

It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is thinking of his self-interest. My point is that that should not be the principle of changes of this nature. It should not be the approach of any party in the House or any individual hon. Member. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks in those terms when it comes to such a major change.

[Geraint Davies]

May I extend the hon. Gentleman’s point a little? Does he accept that in the event of gradual migration from the north of England to the south—for reasons connected with jobs, for instance—there may be dramatic and ongoing changes as each constituency in the south becomes more populated, while those in the north become less populated? If we change the boundaries every five years, there may be enormous shifts.

The hon. Gentleman made an eloquent point about whether Members were familiar with their own constituents. This proposal would lead to a shambolic effect on the association between Members and the stable populations that they represented.

[Greg Mulholland]

If the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency, he would understand why people not only would not want to leave but would want to move there in great numbers. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) asks whether we do not need two Members of Parliament. Perhaps she is making the case for an English Parliament. As I have said, the English question with regard to devolution certainly needs attention.

[Mrs Laing]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I am willing to do so, although I suspect that you may not allow it, Mr Bayley. It is up to you to decide whether it is in order.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way a third time. I had no intention of interrupting him at this point, but as he has put words into my mouth, I must ensure that they are not on the record as mine. I will advance no argument for an English Parliament, now or at any other time. What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman was that if many people came to live in his constituency—as he has just said that they might, because it is such a desirable place—the population would rise considerably, and it would need more than one Member of Parliament in order to have equal representation in the House.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am starting to worry that my acting as a tourism officer for Leeds North West may attract an undue influx of people to the constituency. I think a few would be good for the local economy, but if there is such an influx I will come back to the House and explain that we do have a real problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) made some general, profound comments on the threat behind the Bill to the effect that it will destroy the accountability link between hon. Members and their electorate by ensuring that Members never stand again for the same constituency. If he presses his amendment to a Division, I will happily join him in the Lobby. The electorate has an absolute right to vote to support a Member of Parliament who has done a good job, just as it has the absolute right to throw a rascal out.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Does he think I should seek to divide the Committee on amendment 342, which would mean a report every 10 years, or amendment 341, which would delay the changes until after the election?