Business of the House

Debate between John Spellar and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is quite correct that it is unacceptable for the residents of Peterborough that their Member of Parliament is unable to represent them. Not only is she physically unable to represent them, but she is choosing not to do what I think all right hon. and hon. Members would say is the right thing to do.

Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, an MP becomes subject to the recall petition process if they are convicted of a criminal offence in the United Kingdom and receive a custodial sentence, including a suspended sentence, which is not the case here. In the event of a criminal conviction, the recall condition will not be met unless the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having been overturned on appeal. What that means in layman’s terms is that the recall petition process will not be triggered until all appeals are finalised. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be right for that Member to stand down to allow her constituents to choose a new Member of Parliament.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am not sure the Prime Minister will share the enthusiastic call of the Leader of the House for the citizens of this country to come out on to the streets in hi-vis jackets after the example we have seen in France.

More immediately, yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on the Disclosure and Barring Service means that the Government should urgently correct the blight that is ruining so many lives, often for minor offences committed many years before. Given the limited nature of next week’s business, will the Government take the earliest opportunity to end this scandal? That would have support on both sides of the House, and it would transform the lives of so many and enable them to contribute to the economy and to society.

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I think we would call them the “gilets verts” because they are a green version of the gilets jaunes. Perhaps we could rebrand it and have a positive form. He makes a serious second point, and he is right to raise the issue. I urge him to take it up at Justice questions on Tuesday 5 February.

Committee on Standards: Cox Report

Debate between John Spellar and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards, Implications of the Dame Laura Cox report for the House’s standards system: Initial proposals, HC 1726, and agrees the following changes to Standing Orders and to the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members as approved by the House on 17 March 2015:

Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards)

(i) in paragraph (5), line 3, leave out from “witnesses,” to end and add “may move motions and amendments to motions or draft reports, and may vote.”.

(ii) leave out paragraph (5A).

Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members

Chapter 4: Procedure for inquiries

(i) Leave out paragraph 6(b) and insert –

“b) be in writing or by email, and provide the complainant’s name and full postal address; and”.

(ii) Leave out paragraph 11.

The motion stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate on behalf of the Government. The motion, if agreed by the House, serves to strengthen the independence of the Committee on Standards and modernise its practices. I will touch more on the content of the motion, and I am sure that the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Committee, will also provide the House with a detailed account of the proposed changes.

It is important that we put these changes in their wider context. Now, more than ever, we must not lose sight of our drive to improve the culture of our Parliament. How has this motion come about? In November 2017, shocking stories of harassment and bullying in Westminster came to light. I have been clear, as has the Prime Minister, that there is absolutely no place for this unacceptable behaviour in Parliament, or anywhere else for that matter. We should be setting an example for others to follow, and my ambition is that our Parliament become a role model for other Parliaments around the world.

In response to the allegations, the Prime Minister convened party leaders and set up a cross-party working group to develop an independent complaints and grievance procedure for Parliament. A programme team, overseen by a cross-party steering group made up of Members of both Houses and staff representatives, then worked on the implementation of the new policy, known as the ICGS, which was agreed by the House and launched in July last year. Throughout our work, there was a clear recognition from the cross-party group that establishing the ICGS was the beginning, not the end, of a bigger movement to challenge and change the culture in Parliament. As part of this, we agreed that there must be a review of the scheme at six and 18 months, as it beds in. This gives us the chance to improve as we go and to constantly ask ourselves what more we can do.

I am currently working with colleagues in the House to establish the first of these reviews and that work will begin later this month. The purpose of each review will be, first, to scrutinise how the new complaints procedure is working in practice; secondly, to address outstanding areas, such as how to incorporate into the scheme visitors to constituency offices and how to manage third-party reporting; and thirdly, to incorporate the findings of the Cox report, following the recommendations of the House of Commons Commission and the other independent inquiries set up as part of the ICGS.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Can I ask the Leader of the House about an area of which I was not aware? What does she mean by “visitors to constituency offices” in this context?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It means how visitors to constituency offices might potentially in future be able to submit complaints about the behaviour that they have received in constituency offices.

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

Dame Laura Cox QC’s inquiry—

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way.

[John Spellar]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I spoke to my hon. Friend earlier today, and assured him that the six-month review of the independent complaints and grievance scheme would indeed take into account the issues raised by each of the independent inquiries, and that all issues relating to the way in which the process for managing complaints works would be in scope for that.

[John Spellar]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him.

Secondly, the motion will modernise practices so that referrals can be made by email or in writing. Thirdly, it will abolish the current requirement for the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to consult the Committee on Standards on whether a case that is more than seven years old, or one involving a former Member, can be investigated by her. That will ensure that she can act independently. Many of us have raised grave concerns about appalling allegations that have gone without investigation as a result of the current arrangements. So ensuring that the PCS can operate independently of the Committee on Standards is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.

Business of the House

Debate between John Spellar and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I know my hon. Friend will have plenty of support from across the House for his suggestion, which originally came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I am sure the Minister will come to the House in due course, once the consultation is closed, with further ideas on what more can be done. I draw the attention of hon. Members to Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday, where they may wish to raise this issue directly with Ministers.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Six months ago, Carillion went bust and work stopped on the Midland Metropolitan Hospital. It still has not restarted. This week I received a parliamentary answer from a Health Minister turning down a proposal because it involved additional public capital input. Frankly, if Ministers think they will be able to finish this hospital without putting up more cash, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. May we have a debate or a statement from the Health Secretary to tell us when he is going to stop dithering and start building?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very specific project. I can absolutely sympathise: we are all keen to see new hospitals and improved hospitals in our constituencies. Health and Social Care questions are next Tuesday, so he may want to raise the issue directly with Ministers then.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between John Spellar and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

This debate arguably should have taken place about 40 years ago, so I can say that I am delighted that here we are today, finally discussing the future of the Palace of Westminster. There are difficult decisions to make on how we best protect one of the world’s most iconic buildings for future generations, but we must address those decisions head on.

In any mention of this topic, I am sure the House would like to join me in first paying tribute to the excellent work done by the Joint Committee on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the right hon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston. A number of members of that Committee are present in the Chamber today, and the House owes them, along with the restoration and renewal programme team and our engineers, a debt of gratitude. Their work, and that of our colleagues in the other place, has laid the foundations for the House to take an informed decision on this important issue.

The Palace of Westminster is the seat of our democracy, an iconic, world-famous building—and it is in dire need of repair. Both motions and all amendments on the Order Paper recognise the need for that work. Anyone who has read the report of the Joint Committee will be aware of the two core difficulties we face. The first is one that none of us can shy away from: the costs associated with a programme of works of this magnitude will be significant. While it is our responsibility to safeguard this UNESCO world heritage site, it is equally our responsibility to ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We have been clear that there can be no blank cheque for this work, and value for taxpayers’ money will frame the choices we make today.

The second issue is the state of disrepair within this building. The issue is not a structural one. As the Clerk of the House noted in his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the building is believed to be

“beautifully built and structurally sound.”

The problem, rather, is the services infrastructure that supports the ever-increasing and shifting demands of Parliament—and it is under considerable strain.

Since 1850, we have developed the hotch-potch of pipework and wiring to such an extent that our essential services are now aging faster than it is possible to repair them. Much of the building is supported by infrastructure that is still in place decades after the substantial rebuild of the Palace following the second world war.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

If these matters are so pressing, urgent and obvious, why have we been having September sittings, which enormously disrupt any programme of work?

[Andrea Leadsom]

In truth, work is going on the whole time, whether we are sitting or not, to manage essential repairs. Of course, the engineers are able to get on with more work when we are not here, but the reality is that we have to take a serious decision today about the future for generations to come, as opposed to the patch and mend that has been going on not just for a couple of years, but for 40 years and more.

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the Government side of the House, there will be a free vote for all Members, and for Ministers.

[John Spellar]

It is the same on the Opposition side.

[Andrea Leadsom]

It sounds as if it is a free vote, and all Members are free to make the choice they wish to make.

There are some critical risks in the Palace of Westminster. First, the lack of fire compartmentation increases the risk of fire, meaning that 24-hour fire patrols are necessary to keep us safe. Over the past 10 years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire. Secondly, there is a huge amount of asbestos packed into the walls that needs to be carefully and expensively removed to enable repairs. Thirdly, many pipes and cables are decades past their lifespan, with some now being impossible to access. The likelihood of a major failure grows the longer the systems are left unaddressed.