Devolution and the Union
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
I am really sorry, but I have been too generous in giving way. Members overlook that point when they talk about the Barnett formula, and the hon. Gentleman may want to come back to it in his summing up.
Like it or not—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did not like it—the big jumping off point is now the vow. Whether Tory or Labour Back Benchers like it or not, that is the truth of the matter. The vow must be seen in the context of what was happening at the time it was made. On 10 September, the Prime Minister said:
“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom, then all options of devolution are there, and all are possible.”
The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister—Gordon Brown, for those at home watching who might not be absolutely certain who I mean—said:
“The purpose of the Scottish Parliament should be to use the maximum devolution possible”.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We do not usually use a Member’s name, certainly when he is not informed of any discussion that may take place. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have done that on purpose.
Mr MacNeil
I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. If they want to strike it from the record they can. I was trying to make a wider communication point, but I understand and respect what you are saying.
The vow was surrounded by those remarks and the vow ended the option of the status quo; it moved the argument on. The muddle, of course, is what is meant by the vow. In this Chamber, I asked the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath whether, when he signed up to the vow, he knew what he was signing up to. My suspicion, after the Downing street EVEL declaration on the morning after the referendum, is that he was duped. He will know whether he was or not.
I am not sure what the three amigos meant by the vow when they signed up to it on the front page of the Daily Record. The “three amigos” is the collective name in Scotland for the leaders of the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties—they are seen as much of a muchness. [Interruption.] There they go—the cackling starts again. I suspect that before the referendum the vow meant anything at all to keep Scotland within the Union. After 18 September, they meant it to mean as little as it possibly could.
On the Smith commission, we know what the Scottish people want: they want Scotland’s Parliament to control many areas of policy. Polls show that they not only support the Scottish National party; they support income tax, corporate tax, welfare and benefits, and pensions being dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. If the Smith commission fails the people’s hopes, the polls show that people well understand who the champions of Scotland are and who will put Scotland first. That is why the SNP has between 45% and 59% support in the polls. The complexion of this Parliament will change next May as a result. There are many trigger points that could cause a new, second independence referendum in Scotland. One is an exit from the EU. Another—the most likely—is the demand of the Scottish people for power to go to their Parliament to change their lives, their communities, their families and their neighbourhoods.
Ian Murray
I will not give way because I want other Members to speak and time is ticking on.
A constitutional convention would deal with all these issues, alongside devolving £30 billion to the English regions, reforming the House of Lords and turning it into a regional senate, and further devolution for Wales.
These are important debates. We should have more Government time in which to explore these issues properly, but it is clear that the devolution vow and promise made to Scotland will be carried through—separately from all these other issues about English votes and devolution elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is a view for the whole of the UK and we should do it on that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Members should address the Chair. The last two speakers have felt the need to face in the opposite direction rather than facing the Chair. I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I hope that Members will address each other through the Chair from now on.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is making a thoughtful speech. Does he think that the Republic of Ireland would have had the same success without the powers that it now has under independence, or what we might call total devolution? Does he think that those powers have contributed greatly to what Ireland has now?
Paul Flynn
I shall tread carefully here. I do not want to get involved in the Scottish situation, on which we remained silent throughout the referendum. Members of my family were in the Irish Anti-Partition League and in Sinn Fein in the 1920s. All those divisions were there, although of course we hope that they will come to an end. That has certainly been part of the history of these islands, and we should rejoice at what has in many ways been a happy outcome for Ireland, after the misery and suffering of previous centuries.
We are now in a delicate position, because what happened in Scotland is having repercussions. The vow must be respected. There is no question of turning back on that; if we do, there will be a wave of cynicism from Scotland and elsewhere. No referendum solves everything; it is never a final moment. I recall the 1975 referendum on Europe, which hardly settled things in that regard. The entrenched opinions became more deeply entrenched, and that continues to this day, with people still feeling dissatisfied with the result.
In Wales, there was a tiny majority in favour of devolution in 1997, but the next time a vote was held, 65% of the vote was in favour. Huge changes are taking place. When we campaigned for a Welsh Assembly, there were those who said that we were on a slippery slope. Some were against devolution because it represented a slippery slope towards more independence in Wales; others supported it because they were in favour of just such a slippery slope. If there is one certain way of ensuring the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is to arouse the sleeping giant of English nationalism. We have heard about this today, and as the antagonism—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just say that the time limit is going to have to be four minutes now, because of the interventions?
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I rise to welcome this debate—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just help Members? I do not reduce the time limit deliberately—I do that because Members keep intervening. If Members want to get in, the only way I can accommodate that is by reducing the limit. So it is no use people tutting at me, as I am trying to help everybody who wants to enter into the debate.
Mr McKenzie
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to welcome this debate on devolution and the Union, which comes so shortly after that momentous decision in September by the Scottish people, when they voted overwhelmingly to stay part of the United Kingdom and the Union. We should all accept and recognise that democratic decision and the will of the Scottish people. I spent many months on the campaign trail in my constituency, securing a no vote in Inverclyde, which I was glad to see. However, I was not prepared to rejoice in winning that no vote, because I saw the division that had been created in communities across Scotland, even in families, by the referendum. The Labour party has always led on devolution to Scotland and we engage with the Smith commission in a spirit of openness and partnership, and we hope other political parties will do likewise.
More powers for Scotland are guaranteed, regardless of what we hear from others. We guaranteed this during the referendum campaign, and we will also deliver more powers on the timetable we promised. We want the Smith commission to be led by the result of the referendum. The conclusion should reflect the fact that people want a strong Scottish Parliament inside a strong UK, with the continuation of pooling and sharing of resources across the UK.
I want devolution to be more than that, however—I want it to continue and cascade downwards to local government. On the east coast we see the centralising, controlling SNP in power in Scotland, and therefore on the west coast we need that devolution to come our way. We do not wish to see powers simply put on the train from London to Edinburgh and remain there. We need those powers to be devolved to Scottish local government as well. We have seen that while the east coast is given huge amounts of infrastructure and support, the west coast has not been so fortunate. We feel very removed from Holyrood. We should be devolving more powers to local government, which knows the local communities and what they need and should not be overruled from Edinburgh on what it is trying to deliver.
In last year’s autumn statement we saw many hundreds of millions of pounds coming to Scotland to reside in the coffers of the Scottish Government, but we have seen very little of that cascade down into local government, with my local authority in Inverclyde receiving a pittance of 0.1% of that funding to do anything to enhance communities. We needed, and wished for, our fair share to make a real difference. That is what we in Inverclyde see as the essence of devolution—to see that devolution end up on the doorstep, with people feeling that real power can be taken in their communities, and seeing once again, as we saw in the referendum, that when they cast their vote, it can make a real difference.
We have heard much from the SNP Government in Edinburgh about the fact that they would devolve powers, and it is strange that they attack the vow, yet they are unwilling to make a vow of their own—to list the powers they would cascade to local government and make a real difference. Instead everything they accuse this Parliament of, they replicate: they guard and keep the powers to themselves. We need devolution to come down the line to local government.
Ms Eagle
We are already doing some pre-work, before the election. We want this to happen very quickly after the election, and want to be ready to come forward with some views after proper conversations with people from across the entire country. We are looking at models such as the Scottish constitutional convention and the Irish constitutional convention, which happened after the crash. There are good models out there that we can use to bring about a process that would give a new settlement the legitimacy it deserves. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The shadow Deputy Leader of the House needs to stop enticing colleagues to speak. I want to hear the shadow Leader of the House.
Ms Eagle
I will get on with that later, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Our amendment, had it been selected, would have brought about proposals that would meet the scale of the challenge and unite the country through conversation and consensus; that is exactly what we would seek to do.
When the Prime Minister appeared on his front step just hours after the result of the Scottish referendum was announced, his intention was not to bring our country together, but to try to find a new way to divide us with his partisan suggestion of English votes for English laws, which he appears to want to apply to Finance Bills. Instead of behaving like a Prime Minister, he behaved like a man concerned only with his own narrow party interest who was running scared of the UK Independence party.
The need for a distinct voice and identity for the English is something that I understand, but the issue is much wider than who votes on what, and in which way, in this House; today’s debate has demonstrated that. Look at what this Government have done to make worse the problem of unfair access to resources. They have instigated huge cuts to local authorities in England, and they have hit the poorest areas hardest.
The effect of the Barnett formula distribution pales into insignificance compared with what has been happening in local government allocations. My local authority will have suffered a 57% cut to its 2009-10 budget by the end of this Parliament, which is a loss of over £700 per household. While the social safety net is torn away in the Wirral, Surrey Heath has received an increase of £25 per household. With their modest announcements on some cities, the Government have come very late to any thought of meaningful devolution of power to the English regions. Indeed, they have centralised power quite significantly, beginning with the complete dismantling of the regional development agencies.
Meanwhile, Labour Members have been proposing the biggest devolution of power ever to the English regions. After the McKay commission reported on the West Lothian question, the Government’s own press release said:
“The Government is giving serious consideration to this report. Given the significance of the recommendations for both England and the UK as a whole, it is right to take the time required for a thorough and rigorous assessment.”
That welcome and sensible approach was thrown over on the morning after the referendum. I hope that we can see it reasserted in the months ahead.
Labour has a proud record of constitutional reform achieved by trying to find cross-party consensus. We devolved power to cities as well as nations. We passed the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. We began the process of Lords reforms, and I hope that we will be able to finish it by establishing a senate of the nations and regions. We understand that there is more to the debate than just English votes for English MPs; it is about how our democracy works and how we can rebuild trust in it.
I urge Members to vote against the motion because of its reference to a review of the Barnett formula, which would go against the promises that were given to the Scottish people before the referendum. There is an exciting possibility of progressive change ahead and the prospect of a radical improvement in the way the UK is governed, which would take power and accountability closer to the people and renew our democracy. I believe that we should seize it.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
I should be delighted.
The hon. Gentleman is making a number of very interesting points while trying to rewrite the outcome of the referendum. May I ask him to confirm that the first page of the Scottish Government’s submission to the Smith commission makes plain our understanding that the commission will simply be about devolution and will not lead to independence, and that we absolutely understand and respect the outcome of the referendum? Will he now work with us to maximise the powers—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a lot to get into the debate, and Members rightly wish to contribute. We cannot allow speeches to be made in the form of interventions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Let me just say that after the next speech I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has only just walked into the Chamber, and I do not want to embarrass him.
Mr Redwood
I say that we need justice for England, and that we need to embark on this course now. We could begin today if Scottish Members of Parliament, like those in the SNP, would simply say that they would no longer vote on English-only matters. We could do it quite simply by amending the Standing Orders of the House, which I strongly recommend.
I hope that other parties will come with us. I am offering something that is extraordinarily popular in England. All the parties are struggling a bit to be popular enough to win the general election, and one would have thought that they would want to associate themselves with something as popular as this. I cannot remember when I last supported something this popular, and I do not go out of my way to support unpopular causes. Yet I find MPs from other parties queuing up to disagree with the English people, to deny the English people justice, to say that an English person’s vote should not count as much as a Scottish person’s vote, and to say that, yes, they want to see an income tax rate set for England by people who will not be paying the tax, and who do not represent those who do pay it.
I say, “Justice for England! Justice now! English votes for English issues!”
Select Committee on Governance of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has put this motion before the House today. Is he aware that I understand from an answer to me that the panel was completely unaware that Carol Mills was undergoing investigation—two investigations, actually—by the Australian Senate before it made its decision? Moreover, Saxton Bampfylde wished to inform the panel that that was the case, and the panel was advised not to take evidence from it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are lots of speakers on the list, including the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who I want to get in early on, so we must have very short interventions.
Jesse Norman
I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it now.
The Speaker has made clear his personal support for a split between the roles of Clerk and chief executive. In a statement to the House last week he called for the issues of a pre-appointment hearing and a possible split in roles to be examined and the views of Members to be solicited in detail. This debate, and the governance Select Committee and procedure for wider consultation proposed in the motion, are the House’s response to that request by the Speaker.
The proper governance of this House is a matter of enormous public importance. Indeed, it is properly considered a constitutional matter, first, because the British constitution—at least such as it is for the next eight days—relies on the effective functioning of Parliament and, secondly, because this Parliament, and especially the Clerk, act as the final word on procedural matters for a host of further Parliaments across the Commonwealth.
Contrary to popular belief, parliamentary procedure—the rules of the game—is not some pettifogging accretion, or irrelevant decoration, to the business of democratic government; it is the essence of democratic government. This country is governed by laws, laws are made in Parliament, and that Parliament is run according to rules and procedure; without procedure, there could be no government. Indeed, even the role of chief executive has a constitutional dimension, because the capacity of Members to hold the Government to account rests in part on how well they are enabled to function by the House service.
Because of the importance of this subject, the House has regularly sought to assess the quality of its own governance. Three times in the last 30 years it has invited outside experts to lead a process of review: Sir Robin Ibbs, Mr Michael Braithwaite and Sir Kevin Tebbit. No institution is perfect, of course, and some of their criticisms have been stringent. Even so, those reviews have identified a fairly clear, if inconsistent, path of reform and modernisation.
The first such review, the Ibbs review of 1990, painted a pretty damaging picture of administrative incompetence:
“Good financial management systems and the associated control mechanisms did not exist. There was no effective planning, measurement of achievement against requirement, nor assessment of value for money.”
The Braithwaite review in 1999 acknowledged the constitutional significance of a properly resourced and effective Parliament. It recognised that
“the Ibbs team found a situation which was profoundly unsatisfactory in terms of responsibilities, structure and operation.”
It acknowledged that significant progress had been made, but at the same time it made clear that
“full implementation of Ibbs was slow and in some areas did not occur.”
The Tebbit review in 2007 was rather more encouraging. It concluded that:
“The present system is certainly not broken”
and that it was “well regarded overall”. It mentioned
“effective management of delivery and services”,
adding it was
“highly effective in core scrutiny and legislative functions”,
but it made a crucial exception for the management of the estate and works. It recommended steps to improve integration, transparency and clarity of management goals, and to create a stronger finance function and greater professional management across the board.
To those, we may perhaps add one last data point. In the recent debate on the retirement of the last Clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, the House was united not only in acclaiming the merits of Sir Robert himself as Clerk, but in acknowledging the progress the House had made in key areas of management and modernisation. Those include implementing a substantial savings programme without loss of service, the introduction of new IT and a drive towards paperless working, far greater outreach and significant improvement on issues of diversity and equality, as well as a new apprenticeships programme.
The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), aptly summarised the situation by recognising
“a transformation in the management of the House Service, which has moved from what could be described as an era of gifted amateurism to one of thoroughly competent professionalism.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 901.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must say that we now have a four-minute limit.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I want to avoid personalities, and I certainly deplore whispering campaigns. I consider this to be an interesting debate and I am glad that it is being held. However, if we had gone through the usual procedures for appointing a new Clerk as a result of a vacancy, it is most unlikely that we would be having this debate today. For some time, I have considered it rather odd that the House itself has had no say whatever in the appointment of the Clerk. This is no reflection at all on the previous Clerk or his predecessors, but none of those appointments was ever brought before, say, the Public Administration Committee. It has always simply been a question of the Speaker of the day announcing that so-and-so has been appointed, and that has been the end of the matter. What we are doing now, in having the matter thoroughly looked into by a Select Committee, is the right approach in every possible way. I have thought on previous occasions that I should express some concern about the way in which appointments were made for the most senior job—the most senior officer—in the House, but I thought, on reflection, that no purpose would be served by doing so. After all, first and foremost, we are here for political purposes.
I find it difficult to understand why the position of the Clerk—as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has just emphasised, we are talking about the No.1 authority on procedural rules and on “Erskine May, and the very person who would give advice to the Speaker and to the House—should be combined with that of chief executive, which is entirely a managerial position. It may well be that some very talented people in this world could combine the two position adequately, but I very much doubt it—again, that is no reflection on previous Clerks.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I do not believe this place has been well managed—to a large extent, the opposite is the case. Indeed, in previous debates on the functioning of the House, I have made sharp criticism of the way in which certain functions and aspects of this place have been managed—or mismanaged, as the case may be. We have to recognise that, as has been said in this debate, there are two separate positions here. It may well be that the Select Committee will not come to that conclusion and will recommend otherwise, but I hope that it will recognise that we have two different and important functions here, those of Clerk of the House and chief executive, and not that of a chief operating officer, as that is a bit of a cop out, to say the least.
We need to recognise that, leaving aside day-to-day management, we are faced with a challenge: the need to rebuild this House of Commons. It is in such a state of decay that it is essential that we accept the challenge, and the work should begin no later than 2020. That challenge, given a recognition that we certainly will not be able to carry out that work while the House is sitting or during the long recess, as the case may be, provides all the more reason for effective managerial authority, which I just cannot recognise as being the work of the Clerk of the House. I therefore hope—
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I support the proposed Select Committee and its eminent Chair-elect, but I want to be reassured that it is not an effort to undermine an elected and reforming Speaker of the House. Mr Speaker has given us many more opportunities than we had in the past to hold the Government to account.
I should also like to be assured that the Committee will go wider than the appointment of a new Clerk and splitting responsibilities with a new chief executive. Ideally, the Committee would at the very least recommend that the entire management structure of the House be looked at in this modern age. It would also ideally recommend any changes necessary to improve support to elected Members. To my mind, that should include organisation of the management and the Clerks department; recruitment; what opportunities and prospects are on offer; how promotions are decided; and the perks and privileges. Ideally, it would also include how we ensure that staffing and resources are responsive to the needs of Select Committees, so that we can exercise our role more effectively.
On Monday, the head of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, its first woman general secretary, talked about a “Downton Abbey” recovery. To many hon. Members, the House often has an archaic “Upstairs, Downstairs” feel. Perks and privileges for the few abound, but plenty of glass ceilings are apparent from lower down the ladder.
The debate was prompted by the appointment of a new Clerk. One notable aspect of the process was that outside applications were invited from a range of candidates. That seems to have prompted a bitter reaction from some quarters whose interests seem vested in purely preserving the past.
In this day and age, it would seem strange to the outside world if this were all simply to boil down to defending Buggins’s turn. There is no necessary connection, as we have heard, between an encyclopaedic knowledge of “Erskine May” built up over decades and the ability to run a multi-million pound organisation such as Parliament in the 21st century.
As well as the best management and governance, in the modern age the House is urgently crying out for the updating of parliamentary privilege, to which I hope the Select Committee could also give a push. A privileges Bill has long been mooted, but there has been precious little sign of one from the Government or from within the House. Two years ago, for example, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport produced a damning report naming people who had misled the House over phone hacking and a cover-up at News International. Those conclusions, under our old procedures, now lie parked with the Standards and Privileges Committees for further action. When we came to draft the report and pressed for clarity about privilege and the sanctions available, vagueness was the guidance of the day for fear of exposing the fact that the emperor, namely Parliament, had no clothes—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think we need to get back on to the subject in hand.
Paul Farrelly
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am coming back to the issue of the management and governance of the House, but I wanted to speak frankly about how that difficult report involved trial and tribulation in how Committees were supported by the management of the House.
I want to conclude with a few words about one disturbing aspect of the appointment process, namely that attacks on Mr Speaker, the appointment panel and one of the outside candidates, Carol Mills from Australia, began before the appointment was made on 30 July. They began 10 days before, during the interviews, when leaked attacks from unnamed sources appeared in one Sunday tabloid, and they have carried on since. I will not dignify the organ my naming it, but it was hardly the first time it has attacked Mr Speaker, nor will it be the last. I have particular sympathy in that regard because two years ago I was on the end of such leaks, and not from elected Members, to the same newspaper.
What has happened this summer has been a disgrace, with the same newspaper, the same reporters, a similar modus operandi and similar sources, it seems to me. As we consider the motion, I want to be assured that such bad behaviour will not be tolerated or rewarded in the future.
Summer Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Tredinnick
Yes, thank you.
In this instance it is just possible that Jonathan Cainer has something that people do believe in, and I have made a study of astrology in connection with health care over the past 20 years. I was on the last parliamentary delegation to Hong Kong before the Chinese took it back, and Governor Chris Patten said, “David, what would you like to do? Do you want to go up to the Stanley barracks, go out on a frigate or to the new territories?” I said, “No, Governor. I would like to see your astrologer.” And as Governor of Hong Kong he had one. I went to meet the astrologer and he was very concerned about the buildings around Government House.
I have been to India and talked to people there and to the Indian Government about the Indian astrological system, lahiri, which is part of their culture. In western culture, Culpeper’s book, “Astrological Judgement of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick” of 1655 is the longest in print, so in all cultures we have that tradition.
I will conclude my remarks because I know I will get a lot of friendly e-mails for having had the temerity to talk about astrology in this House, but I am absolutely convinced that those who look at the map of the sky for the day that they were born and receive some professional guidance will find out a lot about themselves, and it will make their life easier. As Propertius, perhaps the most famous Roman poet, said, “A man should live his life in the endeavours which suit him best.”
I am happy for you to intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remind me how much time I have left.
David Tredinnick
Well I will definitely get a lot of friendly e-mails, because I have not got on to saying that I believe firmly as a member of the Health and Science and Technology Committees of the House that we must consider ways of reducing demand for antibiotics. Both the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have reported that by using complementary medicine and by listening to the witnesses we can reduce that demand. I hope that in future we stop looking just at increasing the supply of drugs and consider the way that complementary and alternative medicine can reduce the demand for drugs, reduce pressures on the health service, increase patient satisfaction, and make everyone in this country happier.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.
Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.
When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?
On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:
“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.
In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—
these are familiar words—
“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”
I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.
On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:
“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”
As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?
My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he
“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”
The article continues:
“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—
Humber—
“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”
In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.
Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:
“I would like to register my disappointment”
about
“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”
Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.
The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?
As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.
I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.
The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.
To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that
“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”
Really?
To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,
“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.
Deregulation Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.
Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.
Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.
Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.
Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.
New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—
‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—
(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;
(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.
(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”
This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.
New clause 10—Repeal of the Sunday Trading Act 1994—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday trading at large shops) is repealed.
(3) Section 2, subsection (5) of that Act and Schedule 3 to the Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) are repealed.”
New clause 11—Extending of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “six” and insert “eight”.
(3) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “6 p.m.” and insert “8 p.m.”.”
New clause 12—Suspension of restriction of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—
(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).
(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(8) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—
(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and
(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.
(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—
(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and
(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.
(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(9) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 14—Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), after paragraph (k) at end insert—
“(l) any garden centres.”
Government new schedule 2—Poisons and explosives precursors.
Amendment 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.
Government amendment 12.
Amendment 85, page 24, line 11, leave out clauses 30 and 31.
Amendment 79, in clause 30, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert
“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”
Government amendments 80 to 83.
Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 24, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”
Government amendments 16 to 18.
Amendment 64, page 50, line 30, leave out clauses 73 to 76.
This amendment removes the requirement on persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.
Amendment 66, in clause 73, page 50, line 33, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 67, page 50, line 35, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 69, page 50, line 37, leave out “only”.
This amendment makes it clear that a person exercising a regulatory function under this section must take regulatory action when needed.
Amendment 68, in clause 75, page 51, line 29, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 70, in clause 76, page 52, line 4, after “75”, insert
“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”
This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.
Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert
“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.
Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.
The Solicitor-General
This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.
In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.
Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.
In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.
New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.
Philip Davies
I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.
Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.
Easter Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind Members that we will follow the usual procedure of speaking for about 10 to 15 minutes.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that the Leader of the House has got the gist of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will manage to construct an answer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Members’ fund and whose stewardship of it, along with that of his colleagues, has been very effective. I think that anyone who cares to read the explanatory notes accompanying his Bill will appreciate what a sensible and welcome reform he proposes. He might have been wondering whether, if the Bill receives its Second Reading tomorrow, the Government will table a money motion in support of it, and I can tell him that that would be our intention.
Christmas Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of my speech, I inadvertently failed to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I correct that through your good offices, and apologise to the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think that the clarification is already on the record.
Tom Brake
I wish I had not given way, because I do not know the answer to that question. However, I am sure that we can secure a written response for the hon. Gentleman, who has highlighted the fact that we have significant air quality issues to address in London. The Mayor does need to tackle them firmly. I know that he has launched certain initiatives, but the impact of vehicles is significant and we need to examine wider measures to try to tackle the problem.
My hon. Friend then discussed the Disclosure and Barring Service, which was previously the Criminal Records Bureau. I suspect that many hon. Members will have encountered issues with the CRB and the DBS relating to turnaround times. Often it is not clear where the delays are occurring, because sometimes they are in securing a response from the police. He touched on the issue of school governors, and I think we can all agree that they play an essential role and make a substantial contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members will have been, or may still be, a school governor. As he stated, they need specific skills, and he identified finance as an area where we perhaps need more people coming in. I encourage them to do so.
My hon. Friend touched on the issue of blue badges. He, like me, and I am sure other hon. Members, has experienced some issues relating to the changes that have taken place with that service. I am sure he represents very effectively his constituents who are experiencing difficulties because they were in receipt of a badge but now are finding that it is not available to them.
My hon. Friend mentioned hepatitis. The Department of Health recognises the public health importance of tackling viral hepatitis in England; it imposes a significant burden on the NHS, so he was right to highlight the importance of tackling it. He referred to the South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which provides mental health services, expressing some concerns about that. Clearly I am not going to refer to any individual cases, but I hope that one thing he would take as a positive step forward is the fact that the Government and the Minister who leads on these issues have been strong in pushing for parity of esteem; in other words, people with mental health issues should be treated in exactly the same way as we would expect people who need to go through the acute health service to be treated. They should get identical quality of care and should see pathways that operate just as effectively.
My hon. Friend also touched on the exotic pet trade, which is a serious contributory factor to the threat of extinction faced by many endangered species. The UK Border Force is responsible for dealing with that, and we need to ensure that anyone dealing in that particular trade follows the rules and completes the right paperwork to ensure that everything is above board.
My hon. Friend mentioned Ray Woodcock, a great granddad who has just broken a Guinness world record, jumping 384 feet down into a flooded quarry. I will make sure that the Chief Whips hear of that, because it may have other potential uses for MPs who misspeak in this place.
Finally, my hon. Friend talked about Southend’s city of culture. It brought a smile to my face when he identified Southend as the alternative city of culture. That is something we can all smile about and welcome. I am sure we will follow developments carefully. I thank my hon. Friend for opening the debate. That leaves me a little bit of time to respond to the other contributions.
The first point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised was about Afsana, a constituent of his who is stranded in Dubai. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the support that he needed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular staff, although I understand perfectly why the family will feel that that is not sufficient, given the very serious predicament that their family member is in. I am pleased to hear that a meeting with the Minister has already been agreed, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter as assiduously in that meeting as he has done previously. I am sure that the FCO and consular staff will do everything in their power to help resolve the problem, although all of us who have had experiences of constituents abroad dealing with other legal systems know that that is one of the biggest challenges any Member of Parliament can face in taking up issues on behalf of constituents.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of firefighters’ pensions. He obviously has extensive knowledge of that, which he brings in a very positive way to the Chamber this afternoon. He highlighted some aspects and recognised that it is a good scheme for firefighters. He will know, and I know as a result of a chance meeting with a firefighter while I was out canvassing at the weekend, that the contribution that firefighters make to their pensions is quite significant. The figure that I was quoted was £900 a month as a pension contribution. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has stated his willingness to engage with the Fire Brigades Union, and I hope that will be pursued, as it is not in the interest of the FBU, the Government or the wider public for strike action to go ahead. If there is a possibility of the talks finding a resolution, let us pursue that option.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) is in his place. I wish him every success in seeking out that plum role in panto. That was everyone’s cue for “Oh no, you don’t”, but they were too slow. My right hon. Friend referred to HS2 and the third runway. It is clear that, particularly in relation to HS2, there will be many opportunities to discuss that further in the months and years to come.
My right hon. Friend dwelt at some length on his interests. From the trip that we both undertook to Venezuela and Brazil some year ago, I know about his interest in environmental matters, wildlife and especially bird life. I recommend that he does not walk around Clapham common in the dark with his bat detection material. He may want to choose another location. He spoke about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and concerns there about its wildlife park. I agree that that is a significant issue, but the DRC has a much wider range of issues that we need to contribute towards resolving, as well as that concern. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of upland habitats here. He may have the opportunity at DEFRA questions on 9 January to raise that and other environment-related matters that he referred to.
There are a couple of issues that I will draw to the attention of the Ministry of Justice—vicarious liability and the changes to legal aid, which my right hon. Friend flagged up. He finished by thanking both the Metropolitan police and the staff of the House, and I join him in that. We all know as Members of Parliament that unfortunately the activities of a very small number of people tend to rub off on the activities of others who have no involvement in inappropriate activities.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) raised the serious issue of eating disorders. It is something the Government take very seriously, particularly among young people. We know that those most affected are young people between the ages of 14 and 25, and there might be as many as 1.1 million people—a substantial number—in the UK directly affected. Since April the relevant services have been commissioned by NHS England, so Members who represent English constituencies should raise concerns on the matter with it.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, raised a large number of issues. He wanted us to remember 3 Mercian, which we will do. He referred to the role of the trust special administrator at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I think that he was pleased with some of the outcomes of the process but had concerns about others. I echo those concerns in relation to my local hospital, St Helier. It is a category 6 hospital, so one of the safest in the country, and the best in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for dealing with hip fractures, yet it is proposed, as a result of a clinician review, that its A and E and maternity departments should close, which I will fight very hard.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other health-related issues, which he might want to raise in health questions on 14 January. He also touched on HS2. Given that today we had Transport questions, in which HS2 featured prominently, followed by a statement from the Chair of the Transport Committee, I do not think that there is anything further that I could add. Finally, I was pleased to hear him speaking up for the Government’s position on international development. Following the actions of the previous Government, we are ensuring that we deliver 0.7% of GNI for international development. That gives us credibility around the world when we are talking about the subject. We are recognised internationally for that.
Like other Members, I winced and shuffled in my seat when the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) described the painful process of hysteroscopy. I hope that she, on behalf of us all, will thank her constituent and the other women for providing that information. I think that we need a considered response from the Department of Health. Perhaps more guidance could be issued, whether for patients or doctors, because clearly she has identified a pattern with that procedure and I think that it needs a detailed response.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about beds in sheds. Members will know that the Prime Minister has visited Southall to look at that issue. We heard other contributions this afternoon on the private rented sector. It was clear from the cross-party consensus that emerged that something needs to be done. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would respond positively to a cross-party request to discuss those issues, because clearly it is unacceptable that people are living in sheds. It was noted that in Slough there were just over 6,100 houses where people were potentially living in sheds, although I suspect that some of them were cannabis farms, because of the heat generated. He also highlighted the number of fires that had happened over a three-year period—just under 350, with nine associated deaths. This not only has a very negative impact on the people who are having to live in those conditions; sometimes the consequences are significantly more serious.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet responded to the housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has written to him to say that he would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns. He set out in his speech some possible solutions that I am sure the Minister would want to hear. Other Members made some important points that I am sure the Department for Communities and Local Government would appreciate hearing about.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the third runway. On behalf of his local community, he has been an articulate and consistant advocate of not building that runway, under the coalition Government and under the previous Government. He also discussed HS2, the Fire Brigades Union dispute, and staffing in the House of Commons. He then talked about safer neighbourhood teams. As a London Member of Parliament, I think that unfortunately the changes that have happened mean that there is less visibility on the streets, and people are raising that in terms of the profile of the police. That is an area that we need to monitor. On the living wage, he highlighted the more positive developments in relation to MITIE and flagged up the actions that John Lewis might like to take in this respect. The Government are very supportive of employers who want to take that route, although one could take the view that some employers might find it difficult to provide the living wage.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred to a very difficult case of abuse involving UK and UN personnel that occurred many years ago and did not comply with or satisfy any of the compensation schemes that were available. I can understand why his constituent and he would want closure on the issue. I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of possible solutions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an infrastructure proposal regarding the A30 and the A303 and a bid for dualling, although he did not offer it up as an extremely long runway for Heathrow. He then talked about the village of Feniton and his concerns about flooding and the impact of housing development. There may be an opportunity for him to raise those issues as soon as we get back, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond to questions on 9 January and the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to questions on 13 January.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) complained that we were not having a themed debate today. He may or may not be aware that the Backbench Business Committee discussed the matter and felt that today’s debate should be in this format. Perhaps next time it will feel that it should be in the previous format, with themes. Perhaps housing could have been a theme for today’s debate, or fire brigade disputes—who knows what would have been appropriate? We have a Member here who will feed back the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and we will see what decision the Committee makes for future pre-recess Adjournment debates.
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the contribution that the staff in this place make to the way in which we work. He then dwelled on housing in London, picking up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. He described the particular challenges faced in a borough like Islington—which I know about reasonably well having lived there some years ago—as regards the cost of housing and the need to build more affordable homes. I am not sure whether the Government would want to follow the hon. Member for Islington North down the route of regulating letting agencies, but he has identified an issue with private landlords that requires a solution. I will make sure that the proposal in his private Member’s Bill is drawn to the attention of the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether it can provide a solution. Given that we have had substantial contributions on the issue of housing and the private rented sector in particular, the Backbench Business Committee may look favourably on a request for a debate early in the new year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who has just left his place, thanked organisations in his constituency, including the Salvation Army and church groups. I am sure we would all want to echo those remarks. I will visit my local Salvation Army tomorrow to pick up some gifts for me to give to a family who cannot afford presents this Christmas. The Salvation Army is making a positive contribution at this festive time of year, as are church groups by organising lunches for people who might otherwise be alone.
My hon. Friend also referred to a couple of transport infrastructure projects and I will make sure that the Department for Transport is made aware of those two bids. I do not intend to visit cholesterol corner—it does not sound like a nice place to go—where people can get their arteries blocked in more ways than one: from KFC and McDonald’s to the traffic congestion at the junction.
I believe that I have touched on most or even all of the points that have been raised. In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks, the Door Keepers, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), every Member who has contributed to the debate, and the civil servants who have provided support to ensure that I and others were well briefed, as well as our constituency and Westminster staff. As Members of Parliament we are uniquely privileged in the positions we hold in this House and none of our work would be possible without the contribution that a whole range of people make to our lives.
I will finish with a big smile on my face, just to dispel the notion that I might be auditioning for “Grinch 3”. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I put the question, may I thank all the Members who took part in the debate and wish everybody who stayed behind all the best for Christmas and the new year? I also thank all the staff of this House, wherever they work in it, for their efficiency and for making the lives of all Members so much easier. I also thank the public who visit this rare House of ours. Right, let’s put the question!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Caroline Lucas.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. One at a time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to respond to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) first.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. It would be a beautiful irony and I would love to see it happen.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will agree that I tend to take many interventions and make a point of trying to respond to them. To respond to his point on the impact in Northern Ireland, clearly the new definition of controlled expenditure will have an impact on the devolved Administrations. The lowered registration thresholds will also have an impact in Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the amount that a third-party organisation can spend campaigning against a named candidate is being increased from £500 to £700 through this legislation.
Tom Brake
I beg to move amendment 32, page 12, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ‘“where—
(a) the expenses fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, and
‘(b) the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties,
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.”’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 33
Amendment 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.
Government amendments 34 to 45.
Tom Brake
Clause 26 sets out the test that third parties need to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure. There has been extensive comment from a number of bodies, such as charities and voluntary organisations, that the Bill will capture their ordinary campaigning activities. That was not the case. However, the Government gave an undertaking in Committee to revert to a test based on the wording of the existing legislation, which provides that controlled expenditure is only that
“which can reasonably be regarded as intended”
to promote or procure the electoral success of parties or candidates. The Government’s amendments meet that commitment.
I would like to thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission and others for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to the amendments. I accept that there is not total agreement on our amendments, but I know that the NCVO, for instance, is at least partially happy about the proposals we have come forward with.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have fewer than 20 minutes left and five Members wish to catch my eye. If we can divide the time evenly, we should get everybody into the debate.
Tom Brake
I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I say to the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that the problem with someone dusting down their Second Reading speech is that they miss changes made to the Bill in the interim. I would, however, like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that organisations from all walks of life have expressed views—sometimes strong views—about the Bill, and I am grateful that so many have taken the time to share them.
The Bill is about transparency and giving the public confidence in our political system. I am sure that no Member would disagree that we must ensure that all those who impact on our democracy do so transparently, accountably and fairly—these measures will do that. This debate has covered a wide range of viewpoints. There is not time to address every point that has been raised, but I will quickly recap what this Bill will do, as that should address points raised. It will introduce a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to complement our existing transparency regime; it will fill a specific gap where it is not certain on whose behalf consultant lobbyists are lobbying; it will ensure that third parties campaigning at elections do so in a fully transparent manner; and it will give the public reassurance that trade unions which influence public life beyond their own members know who those members are. The Bill will bring greater transparency to our political system, as we promised to do, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.