Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that a great deal of time and effort is taken in the drafting departments in Government Departments. My noble Friend Lord True and I run regular training sessions, as do the officials in my office. We are always on the lookout for good and bad practice so that we can ensure that people know what Members of Parliament need, and we inform those individuals of what is helpful to us in dealing with casework and in which format we might need information. I am always open to example of good and bad practice being passed to my office, and I will certainly raise it with the relevant Department.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Twice in questions today, compensation schemes have been raised, and I am heartened that the Leader of the House herself championed this issue as Paymaster General and has been in contact with the Cabinet Office. However, could she help me and my constituent who was in the secret services? He was dismissed because of his sexuality alone, and is one of a group of people who cannot talk about the matter publicly. Despite my hammering on doors in Whitehall, we are making very little progress. As well as the gay veterans’ scheme and other compensation schemes, would the Leader of the House take up this issue for people who served their country well and were dismissed simply because they were gay or lesbian? It is not fair, it was not right, and it needs redress.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. Quite often, because of the nature of someone’s service, they are not able to participate in particular inquiries or reports that are produced on historic wrong- doing and miscarriages of justice. Clearly, the agencies have evolved over the years, and the heads of those agencies are now public figures, so I will certainly write to the Cabinet Office and ask it to consider this matter, copying in both the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which are primarily the sponsoring Departments for those agencies.
Points of Order
Meg Hillier Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week I attended a Committee considering a statutory instrument on the immigration health surcharge, and, as would be expected in such a forum, I was asking questions of the Minister—in this instance, the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—who was unable to answer a number of those questions.
I should give credit to the Minister—I have alerted him to my intention to raise this point of order—because he has since written to me, ahead of the House finally agreeing to the statutory instrument yesterday, and I thank him for that courtesy. However, that was not the first time that I have been in a statutory instrument Committee and Ministers have been unable to answer questions. In this case it was off the back of a detailed impact assessment conducted by the Home Office, but on other occasions Ministers have been unable to supply answers on fairly basic information.
I wanted to raise the matter with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it seems to me that this is an inadequate and inopportune way for the House to operate. We are there to scrutinise the legislation of the Government of the day, and we are hampered in doing so if Ministers are unable to give us answers and instead promise, variously, to write to us or tell us about the issue involved at a later stage, or sometimes even brush off the questions. I wonder whether you would like to say anything on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. I assume that she did inform the Minister that she intended to raise it.
Obviously, Ministers are responsible for their own replies to Members in Delegated Legislation Committees, as they are in the Chamber. I note that the hon. Lady said that the Minister did her the courtesy of writing after the event, but I think we would all believe—and it is certainly my view—that Ministers should have all the relevant information to hand when responding to a debate. The Leader of the House is here and has clearly listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said. I am sure that she will take that point back, as will others on the Treasury Bench.
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to raise a number of issues in the Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment debate. One is the issue of passport delays, which is affecting many of our constituents.
Yesterday, at the Home Affairs Committee, the head of HM Passport Office acknowledged that there was a backlog of over 500,000, despite constant reassurances from the Government Front Bench that passport applications were being dealt with within 10 weeks. The backlog is having a real effect on people’s ability to travel not just on holiday but to family funerals and so on. That is unacceptable. I was the last passports Minister in the last Labour Government, so I know there is a predictable upsurge in demand—we saw it after the banking crisis—and it could have been predicted. It reflects some of the challenges raised by a drop in staffing numbers and without enough of a plan to increase them in time. The Passport Office has always been very good at going with the ebb and flow, so the situation is shocking. I hope that in the few weeks of the summer recess, the Government will get a grip of the issue to ensure that, even if many people are, sadly, still unable to go away on holiday or to visit family, it will be sorted by the autumn.
Another key issue in the Home Office—there are so many—is immigration. I am one of the top six customers, if you like, as a Member of Parliament on immigration issues in the Home Office. There is delay, inaction, inaccuracy and lives being wrecked all over the place. The Syria resettlement scheme was, as the Public Accounts Committee highlighted, run quite well, and we have now had the Afghanistan and Ukraine resettlement schemes, but all of them have knocked out the normal day-to-day work done to support family visas and other immigration cases. I have people living in limbo, unable to get on with their lives, their children unable to go on school trips or to universities. A women wrote to me just today, hoping that her partner would be able to come here as she is due to give birth in Homerton Hospital. She has been told that the 12-week wait for a family visa has now been extended to 24, blowing out their careful planning to make sure they could be settled and together as a family for the important occasion of the birth of their first child. That is just one example out of many of where lives have been wrecked.
On the Afghanistan resettlement scheme, the Syrian resettlement model was well-worn and worked pretty well. The Public Accounts Committee gave it a fairly good thumbs up—although there are always issues on which we want to see improvements—so there was a blueprint in place, yet in a hotel in Old Street in my constituency, Afghan families and individuals have been stuck since last August, unable to move on. We are getting to the one-year anniversary—not a birthday we want to celebrate. While of course we all recognise the challenge and vital importance of supporting our Ukrainian neighbours in their need, the excuses coming out of the Home Office—“We are dealing with these issues, but we have delays because of Ukraine”—are just not acceptable. This is the British Home Office. It should be able to deal with more than one issue at a time. However, we are repeatedly seeing a version of whack-a-mole, in which an issue arises and everyone is shipped over to deal with that issue while other people wait in the queue. These people are stuck, they are living in limbo, and, as I have said, they are suffering devastating consequences. It is a litany of poor communication and delay, and it is having a huge impact on people’s lives.
I have been an immigration Minister, and if someone does not qualify to be in the UK that is fine, but many people who do qualify are sitting in limbo as they wait to renew a leave to remain application which is very unlikely to be refused. What a poor welcome to our country—a country that is built on the shoulders of many migrants. Indeed, we have a candidate for its leadership whose parents entered the UK from another country, and have created a life and a potential new Prime Minister. We should be doing much more to welcome these people.
I do not lay all this on the staff. There have been staff cuts in the Home Office, and indeed across the civil service. Civil service staffing fell to its lowest ever level before 2016 and, although there has been an increase since then, largely connected with Brexit and trade issues, the Government’s proposal to remove 20%, 30% or 40% of officials from Departments poses a real challenge. The Government need to be clear about the consequences of those potential cuts.
Climate change is obviously a huge issue for us all, and I am very concerned about the Government’s repeated failure on home insulation, which is an issue in my constituency and across the country. We have seen a number of failed projects, but the Government now have an opportunity to kick-start the economy. I make this plea now in particular because by the time we return in September we will have a new Prime Minister to hear how we can create jobs, growth and opportunity for people by ensuring that we can get that insulation into people’s homes. Emissions from properties constitute 19% of total emissions, and that needs to be tackled, but it will not be tackled unless we get this right.
As the Public Accounts Committee pointed out in a report published a while ago, the Government have plans for electric vehicles but no real plans for a charging structure. How are people going to make the leap into buying electric vehicles unless they can be sure that they can charge them?
These are small but clear examples of the need for us to turn the challenge of achieving net zero into something that is manageable, meaningful and affordable for the people who need to make those moves in order for us to achieve it. This cannot be done to people; they have to be empowered to do it, and the Government are not helping in that regard. They are missing a real opportunity to drive green jobs, growth and investment.
Finally, I want to reiterate my concern about people living in flats in my constituency. I declare an interest, in that I live with a communal heating system and with cladding—although that is fast being removed from my building by the developer, which, happily, is not charging my neighbours and me.
Communal and district heating is not covered by the energy price cap. Let me give some of the worst examples of what is happening in my constituency. One constituent faces a 600% increase in his gas bill. Another has a well-paid job but is still struggling, with energy prices rising by 400%. In a third case, the increase is over 100%. It is very difficult to absorb such prices during the current cost of living crisis. The Government have said that they will change this eventually, but they need to provide support now for people with communal heating systems, who are really struggling.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I have just emerged from conducting a leadership contest in Parliament before we rise for the summer recess. Had you not been elevated to your current position, Mr Deputy Speaker, no doubt you would have been alongside me carrying out that process. I am very relieved that, as per usual, we have delivered on time and within budget, with two candidates going forward to the country.
I will start with a number of subjects relating to Transport for London. We still have an extension to the current arrangements under which the Government have provided £5 billion to TfL to keep it going, but we still have no long-term agreement. It appears that the Labour Mayor of London refuses to do what is required, which is to make economies and produce more revenue for TfL. He refuses to take any action on fares, pensions and some of the rather bizarre working arrangements that exist for TfL. We are seeing the effect of that. During the recent heatwave, services were being reduced even before we got to the state where, when temperatures reached 25°, services were cancelled or altered. The Mayor is now proposing a managed decline of bus services in London, which will damage the system still further. It is clear that the Government need to reach an agreement with the Labour Mayor of London to ensure that we have a long-term arrangement.
As Members who regularly attend these debates will know, I always raise Stanmore station.
Dame Meg Hillier
As a fellow London MP, I want to be clear with the hon. Member: no one wants to see buses cut. Is he asking the Government for more money for London to make sure that we backfill the loss of fares as a result of covid? That will mean that the buses do not have to be cut. The Government’s funding is causing the problem, so is he asking for more money?
Bob Blackman
Clearly, Transport for London finances need to be put on a proper footing, and the capital funding that will be required is the most important aspect for the long term. The suggestion at the moment is that Crossrail will be the last investment in London for a very long time. That is the principal concern.
As I was saying, the Mayor of London wanted to build tower blocks all over Stanmore station car park. I am pleased to say that Harrow Council—then under Labour control—rejected that planning application. The Mayor called it in and the developer has now pulled out because they cannot make the financial scheme work, so it is in a state of limbo. He also suffered defeat on Canons Park station. Once again, he wanted to build tower blocks in the car park but was defeated at the planning committee. They are not content and have come back with another proposal for Queensbury station car park, again, for tower blocks on the car park. There is a trend, and it is not providing any new homes for anyone, because the plans will constantly be stalled and prevented by the local authorities concerned.
I am pleased that the new Conservative regime in Harrow has made a great start following the elections in May, with the pledges that were made to the electorate being honoured already. One hour of free parking outside shops will be implemented from 1 August, in record time. There will be a ban on tall buildings in Harrow, so we will no longer see buildings above six storeys built. Tower blocks end up, I am afraid, as ghettoes and in the social discontent that we regularly suffer in London. The council is also combating fly-tipping, with the introduction in September of free bulky waste collections from homes. Those are all new initiatives.
I must declare an interest: my wife was elected to the council to represent the good voters of Edgware. She topped the poll in that ward, which was historically a safe Labour seat. She is now in charge of trying to sort out customer contact—Harrow Council’s email traffic and its telephone system. I wish her well in that regard, because the system has been dreadful; people wait on the phone for 45 minutes and then they get cut off. I am certain that that is all going to change.
Let me turn to some of the problems we are suffering in the constituency. I very much echo what the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said about passports. Even people who have paid for the priority service are not getting the service within the promised timeframe. That is scandalous. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination and communication, because the Home Office says one thing to constituents and another thing to my office. That cannot be right. Yesterday, at the hub in Portcullis House, staffers waited up to four hours to see someone. It just cannot go on like this. We have even had delays with applications for biometric cards. One constituent has been stuck in Turkey since Christmas; they are still waiting and cannot get home to be with their family. That must change.
There are still 12,000 Afghan refugees stuck in hotels. We have one case of an 11-year-old boy who was unfortunately put on a plane to France instead of the UK. He is still in France and has not been reunited with his family. The bureaucracy is a nightmare. We need to get that resolved. I have just had an excellent briefing from my new friends in Harrow Council—the officers—on what we are doing on Ukrainian refugees. I will be writing to the Minister concerned with a lot of proposals for what needs to happen and change.
I had the pleasure on Monday of meeting former Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. One thing about Israel is that they love elections. The one thing I hope they never inflict on us is their voting system, because we would perennially be in elections here. It was a great pleasure to meet ex-Prime Minister Netanyahu. I wish him well and I hope that Likud is returned to power in the forthcoming election.
The Javed Khan tobacco control review was published recently. Unfortunately, because of the current position in the Government, we are not seeing any movement on that. I hope that the Government will come forward speedily and implement the review’s recommendations without too much delay.
I shall be spending the summer in the constituency. I am delighted to say that I have had a record number of applications for work experience with me—no fewer than 56. Those people will be out on the streets with me, meeting the voters.
Finally, I trust that now we have a new Deputy Leader of the House, he will implement without delay the business of the House Committee that he pledged to introduce a long time ago.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a great interest in this project. It is important to be clear with the House today that taking the Sponsor Body back in-house and back under the control of the House does not rule out any option. It does not rule out the option of a decant of 20 years. What I am saying to the House is that I do not think that that is a deliverable option. We need to look at some more practical measures, and I will come to that later in my speech. It is difficult to comprehend how we can deliver a project of this magnitude without some form of decant, but I am not an expert and, as the hon. Gentleman says, lots of Members are not experts in this field, so we need the delivery authority, which will have that expertise, to guide us and to come to those decisions very quickly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House has acknowledged that he is not an expert, and that most of us in this House are not experts on running major projects. The original intention of the Act of Parliament passed by this House, which has been unpicked in private in the Commissions, was that an expert body, the Sponsor Body, would be created to deliver that expertise. That body has now been abolished. He says that it has been brought in-house, but many people have left it. Can he be very precise with the House about exactly what will replace it, and where he thinks that expertise will come from in the Commissions, which in both Houses do not have the inbuilt expertise to deliver this project?
Mark Spencer
I will come to that, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right. What we need to do is get on with this project and stop dilly-dallying, which is why the direction of travel was not as rapid as the Commissions and I wanted. We were heading for a huge confrontation with this House, because I do not think the plans would have been palatable to Members when we finally got there. There is a shortcut we can take to expedite this process, and I will come to the structure later. I think we can get to a place where we can all agree to tap into the expertise she says we need, and that is what we are trying to establish.
Mark Spencer
Where my hon. Friend is right is that it is a little bit like the Forth Bridge, in that there will always be something that will need to be maintained, protected or made safe. In the short term, we need to prioritise those things. There are four areas that the Commissions want to prioritise; I hope the House will agree that they are all very important priorities. No. 1 is fire and safety; that is absolutely fundamental to what we should be driving towards. Building services are second, then asbestos, and then building fabric conservation. I hope Members will agree that those are indeed urgent priorities for us to focus on.
Dame Meg Hillier
On the point of fire safety, could the Leader of the House confirm that the tens of millions of pounds—£140 million or so—that has been spent on the fire safety system to date protects those of us who may be working or in the building at the time, so that we could escape; but it does not protect the building? Would he also confirm that he is aware of, and understands, the responsibilities that UNESCO places on the Government of the day to make sure that this world heritage site does survive?
Mark Spencer
Of course; it is absolutely vital. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that actually Notre Dame burned down—a terrible disaster—because workmen were in there. They had actually decanted, and it was the workmen who were working in there that finally burnt down Notre Dame. So we do have a responsibility to make sure not only that people are safe, but that the building is here for hundreds of years to come. I think we can achieve that by making those our four most important priorities.
For the medium and long term, the Commissions’ report sets out the parameters of how to deliver the works, above all advocating better integration of all the various safety, repair and renewal works that are taking place across the palace. That approach could allow decisions to be brought to Parliament quicker, work to start faster, and priorities to be flexed where required.
Turning to the next steps, the motion before the House is to endorse the recommendations of the Joint Commission and agree the change to the response function and the revised mandate to the works. Secondary legislation will be required to give effect to some of these decisions. So over the next year options will be reviewed, and a strategic case will be presented to the House in 2023. It is important for Members to understand that the House is not being asked for a decision on decant or costs today. Members will be consulted, and will have opportunities to engage with the decision making, and the House will need to take future decisions on these issues at a later date. In the meantime, the Commissions have endorsed a pragmatic approach that will allow work to be undertaken in the interim.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right to raise it and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Am I confident? I am not currently confident or certain of where we are at the moment in terms of delivering anything in the way that we wanted to, but I am confident that we need to do it. Having spoken to the Delivery Authority, I am confident that it views this as doable, and it is the authority that will be carrying out the work. Having reviewed the situation, the Independent Expert Panel noted:
“in principle the existing governance model could be made to work, but that lost confidence and momentum means that retaining the current model is unlikely to work.”
What it has also said, which might speak to my hon. Friend’s question, is that the recommendation of bringing the Sponsor Body function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure to cover what is needed for the next 12 to 24 months—the decision phase if you like. It has also recommended that that pragmatism should not preclude alternative future options. We need to see this as part of a process to get us to the decision. Regrettable though it may be, and I do regret it, that we are where we are, this appears to be a compromise way of moving forward, with best value for money, safety and time.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the Public Accounts Committee. To be clear, the role of that Committee is no substitute for the role of a proper sponsor or client function that keeps a close eye on the cost on a day-to-day basis. We look at things retrospectively, although we may make recommendations. Nor are we, as the Public Accounts Committee, expert enough to deliver this process. She talks about our report. Our report said that we regretted that decisions were made secretively and in private on a decision that was before the House and an Act of Parliament of this House. Does she have any comment about how we got from that Act of Parliament to where we are today?
Thangam Debbonaire
I completely support what my hon. Friend says. Why are we here? I have already mentioned my own view on why we are here, at least partly. We need to note here that the Sponsor Body was repeatedly asked, as if we had had a referendum—goodness me—and asked people to keep voting on it until they came up with the answer that was wanted. It is very difficult to avoid looking at some of what has happened over the past couple of years and coming to the conclusion that there were people who were just going to keep asking until they got a different answer and, eventually, when they got a different answer, they said, “I don’t like that answer.”
That is problematic. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not the duty of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise the day-to-day spending of this body, whether it is in-house or external. It will need a very strong programme board, which will need expertise. There will also have to be extremely tight accounting measures.
I do not yet know exactly who will be on the programme board. I urge all those right hon. and hon. Members who have not just an interest—interest alone is not enough—but actual skill in this area, and ideally some of those who have history, having sat on so many Committees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) have, to consider whether they should be part of the programme board. I certainly urge them to think about it.
Doing nothing is not an option. There is no doubt that large-scale work is needed. Asbestos, leaks, wires, plumbing nobody knows the function of, a building at risk of fire and flood—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) is quite right that the fire remediation works mean that we are protected, but the building is not—this work has to happen. It is testament to the hard-working House staff and to contractors that we thankfully have not yet witnessed a catastrophic failure of the building, as has been seen in others around the world, but at some stage that hard work will not be enough.
I want that on record. We must make sure that we are not the Parliament that delayed, at the cost of this magnificent building with its magnificent history. The parliamentary estate is in desperate need, and it is important that the restoration and renewal process works well with Parliament’s maintenance teams, who do such a good job. We have therefore no choice but to find a way out.
I note the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Hackney South and Shoreditch and other right hon. and hon. Members, who are incredibly knowledgeable. I agree with their desire for urgency and that everything must be done to avoid unnecessary delay, cost and risk. I particularly pay further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for the work she has done on the Public Accounts Committee. I reiterate that in its recent report, the Committee encouraged further scrutiny. Value for taxpayers is important.
Before I close, I also recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, who in his role as Chair of the Finance Committee and the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission has been invaluable, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Many hon. Members have sat on the Committees for many years, but I do believe he may be the only one to have sat on pretty much all of them for a significant amount of time. His incredible wealth of knowledge seems to me to be unmatched.
However, having made my points, I will not test the House’s patience by pushing the amendment in my name to a vote. I will end by saying that we are the generation who have been given the honour, the privilege and, yes, we could say the burden of sorting this problem out. I think it is an honour and a privilege. Some of us will not see the end of it—either we will be no more, or we will be no more Members of Parliament. That is just where we are. We are the generation who decided to put it off no longer. We must go on record as having done everything we can to get the process moving, to preserve and enhance the Palace of Westminster so that it can go on as a safe, thriving and accessible workplace for many, many more centuries to come.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a very disappointing debate because, as other hon. Members have said, we have been going round and round this issue for far too long. I think we need to slay some myths here. Value for money is one thing, but it does not mean cheap. There is no way that the work can be done to this building—minimally or maximally—on the cheap. It will cost billions of pounds. There is no getting away from that. This is a UNESCO world heritage site, and under the rules of UNESCO, that responsibility falls on the Treasury or the finance department of the country responsible, which in this case is Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government of the day.
There is huge risk in this building. Only in recent weeks we have had masonry falling down, and yesterday we had the leak. It is only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt. I know that former Leaders of the House have worried about this a great deal, and not surprisingly. We are a group of people who aspire to run the country, and the Conservative party is deciding who will be its leader and the next Prime Minister. We all want to be in a position to make decisions, yet on this issue everyone seems to hope or believe they will not be standing when the music stops and that, somehow, the problem will be someone else’s.
This is a time for decisions. These delays are ongoing and repeated. The Joint Committee’s report was not debated until about a year after it was published, and there was a further delay as the votes on the report kept being put off. I vividly remember the date, 31 January 2018, because I came from my daughter’s hospital sickbed to be here for that debate. I thought, “Great, we might get something through that means we can get moving on this.”
Then there were endless delays in funding the Sponsor Body’s work to develop the business case. Money was eked out, a bit at a time, so there was never really enough to get on with the job and do the very detailed work that needed to be done. We know it might mean getting the mechanical and engineering in place, two floors below the basement, to run this building. It might mean stripping out asbestos between the Committee corridors. They are the things that make this place dangerous. The required decisions have been endlessly delayed.
I want to slay another myth about the money. The Leader of the House cited the £3.5 billion figure that was originally mooted, and £4 billion has been mentioned at different times. This was never the figure for all the work to the building; it was an indicative figure, based on work by Deloitte that looked at the options and modelled certain works. The figure was an order of magnitude and was never for the full work on the building. It said, “If you take this approach, this approach or this approach, this is the scale we are looking at.” Unfortunately, that figure has repeatedly been embedded as though it were a fact.
The House asked the Sponsor Body to come up with what needed to be done to the building and how much it would cost. The answer came back that it would cost £7 billion to £13 billion, with a full decant for up to 20 years. The Commissions did not like that answer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said. There is no point asking the experts to do the work and then ignoring what they have to say. This place does not have the experts to do the work the Sponsor Body did. Nobody is perfect, and I am not saying that every decision of the Sponsor Body was absolutely right and on the nail, but it did what it was told to do and came back with the numbers, and it was told that they were too high.
The Leader of the House talked about shortcuts to expedite the process. He said, “We can do both, get value for money and progress as rapidly as possible. We need a common-sense approach.” I do not have a problem with a common-sense approach, but I do not think it is possible to have a common-sense approach that halves or changes the costs for something on which we have already set the parameters for what we want to do. I cannot see how that can be delivered.
We will create two corporate officers and a client board made up of the two Commissions. I have to confess that I was surprised when a senior member of one of the Commissions—I will say no more, so as not to identify them—approached me in the last week to say, “We will need your help to do this job, because we are not sure we have the ability to do it.” As I said before, I may chair the Public Accounts Committee, ably helped by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is the deputy Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and others, but we are not experts in running major projects. We scrutinise, which is a different thing. We need to make sure we have that expertise in place, so I hope the Leader of the House can tell us how he will ensure there is real expertise on the Commissions because, let us be honest, they are made up of members who rotate very fast and do not necessarily have any understanding or experience of running a major project, and do not necessarily know which questions to ask.
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds highlighted some of the issues we see in Government, but we also regularly see non-executive members of boards who do not take their role seriously, who do not do it properly, who do not get on top of the subject and who do not always call out things that need to be called out. That needs to be built in so that we have clearly focused non-executives from both outside and inside the House to deliver that and make sure the programme board has that expertise.
I am really concerned today. We need a long-term decision to be made on this. Parliament will face these difficult decisions—I am quoting the Leader of the House back at himself—but he also talked about future Parliaments revising this. If we start fiddling around, as we have already done, and delay progress considerably, we will be in a very bad place.
It is outrageous that the very body that legislates and passed an Act of Parliament to set up this structure has dismantled that in a secret, mineral-water-filled room. The minute from that meeting revealed so little about what the discussion was. Reports of it suggest that there was not a serious discussion about the real consequences. That is not a model for democracy, yet it was the mother of Parliaments that made that decision in that very underhand and secretive way. That is one of the most disappointing things about the whole saga.
Our words will echo down the halls of history if we see this building burn down and we were the people who let it happen. The hand of history is here. I believe that six generations of the family of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds have been here. He stands up for the future of this place, as we all should do. We need to see real action now.
Mark Spencer
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting and at times robust debate. I hope we can find a way forward through consensus. I hope hon. Members will recognise that we have much in common. We all want to achieve the same aims: we all want to protect this fantastic building, we all want to save taxpayers as much money as possible and we all want to do it as quickly as can be delivered. I think that the way forward that we are now suggesting does allow for all those things to happen.
Let me respond to some of the comments made in the debate. Reference was made to the Speaker’s House restoration, which is an example of how projects can be done “piecemeal”. That project was done completely independently, and during the course of the work, there have been innovations. For example, all the light fittings in the Speaker’s apartments are now completely sealed and airtight, so that in future it will be possible to change the a light fitting for another type without disturbing the asbestos above it. I think that is a huge step forward, because those who work on that part of the building in the future will be safe and taxpayers’ money will be saved. That leap forward in technology is an example of how we can make progress efficiently and save taxpayers’ money.
There is a clear brief to the Delivery Authority to get on with the job. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) share my passion for getting on with this project, which is why their names appear on the Order Paper with that of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). To be absolutely clear, it is not possible for me to stand here at the Dispatch Box and guarantee that the House will have a vote on an eight-year decant. What I can say is that the members of the Delivery Authority and the Commissions have heard this debate and I will make sure that an eight-year decant is one of the proposals they consider very seriously.
The concept outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends of turning the telescope around and saying, “This is the time available. What can be delivered in that time?” is an interesting one. We may well be able to pursue it and look at what it is possible to achieve. Clearly, there is a sliding scale. I am told it is technically possible to deliver restoration and renewal without decanting from the House of Commons, but the timescale and the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous. We can consider all those matters as we move forward.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place. She met me on a number of occasions to assist in the decision-making process and has been of great value to the thinking behind the way forward.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said there is not enough expertise on the House of Commons Commission. I can assure her that there will not be expertise on the House of Commons Commission; the expertise will be on the programme board, which will advise the Commission. While the Commissioners, of whom I am one, may not be experts, we will recruit and secure expertise on the programme board to give the Commission professional advice, which I hope the Commissioners will follow. I am sure they will.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at such a late stage. One of my concerns is that the Commission has been rather spooked by numbers that, in major project terms, are not extraordinary. It is costing £2 million a week just to do the maintenance and basic repairs to this place. We need to see figures for what it will cost to do that on an ongoing basis versus what the cost would be to do it in one hit. The public are not fools; if we kick the can down the road so that it costs more overall, they will see through that.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that. One of the fundamental problems is that, because restoration and renewal was on the horizon, what was happening was that a piece of masonry, for example, would become unsafe; a scaffold would be erected to retrieve that piece of masonry, and the subsequent decision-making process would end in, “Well, there’s no need to do anything too dramatic here, because it will be swept up with restoration and renewal in the future.”
Under this new system, instead of putting the scaffold up and bodging it—for want of a better expression—we will be able to get up there and mend it properly once for the next 50 years, rather than waiting for restoration and renewal to come and sweep the project up. The Victoria Tower is a really good example. It was being delayed because restoration and renewal was on the horizon, but we will now be able to bring that project forward, get on with it and do it properly for once in a generation. We will be able to crack on with it in the short term. There is a way to save money for the taxpayer, expedite some of these repairs and make sure that the process happens in a more timely way.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
The Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box on 20 June, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that in 91% of cases there is now a rapid and improved response. [Hon. Members: “Really?”] Those are publicly available statistics. However, I recognise, and the Home Office recognises, that that means that 9% of people are not getting the level of service that they should expect. There are routes through Portcullis House for hon. Members to raise individual cases, and I encourage them to do so, but if the hon. Lady writes to me with the specific case that she raises, I will write directly to the Home Secretary on her behalf.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Dom Phillips, a British journalist, has been missing in the Amazon for more than three days with his Brazilian colleague Bruno Pereira. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with Foreign Office Ministers? Will he urge them to contact the Bolsonaro Government and urge them to act very fast to help to track him down and put every effort into finding him? Will he get them to write to all Members of the House to explain what actions they have taken to support finding Dom Phillips?
Mark Spencer
I know that the Brazilian authorities are currently trying to find the gentleman to whom the hon. Lady has referred, but I will of course raise the issue directly with the Foreign Secretary as a matter of urgency. The sooner we can find that gentleman, the better.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will raise his question directly with the Home Secretary on his behalf.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Black women are five times more likely to die in childbirth, according to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights 18 months ago and, prior to giving birth, they are 40% more likely than white women to suffer a miscarriage. That is a shocking inequality. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how to breach those serious inequalities in maternity care between black and white women?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and I join her in the ambition to close that gap in service that those women feel. Maternity services up and down the country are working hard to help with childbirth. Hopefully she will be in her place on 14 June for Health questions, and I think an Adjournment debate or Backbench Business debate would be widely supported.
Easter Adjournment
Meg Hillier Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I fully endorse your proposal, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the summer Adjournment debate should be known as the David Amess Adjournment debate. The speed with which he described Southend means that whenever I go there I simply run to keep up with the sites that he used to describe to us. It would be nice to remember him in that way.
I wish to speak about the refugee crisis around the world and offer some thoughts on where it might come to. As we go into the Easter Adjournment, around 70 million people around the world are refugees. They are refugees from wars, famine, human rights abuse and poverty, and refugees fleeing intolerance in their societies. They are all people who want to survive and contribute to the world. They are often treated brutally wherever they try to escape to. Indeed, on our own continent, Europe, many are dying in the Mediterranean and, sadly, some are dying in the English channel trying to get to this country. Such injustice has to be compared with the rhetoric with which we claim to be supportive and always welcoming of refugees—we are not and we have not been.
I totally and absolutely condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the bombing of civilian targets and the killing of people, and I have every sympathy for all those who have had to flee from Ukraine to try to get to a place of safety. I absolutely welcome the way in which people in this country—apparently 200,000 of them—have offered space in their own homes to refugees from Ukraine, and the fact that those who come here will be able to stay here, will get papers immediately and will get the right to work. I absolutely welcome and support all that. Indeed, in my constituency and borough, many people are taking part in fundraising efforts to assist Ukrainian people. There obviously needs to be an urgent ceasefire, a withdrawal of forces and a long-term settlement that brings about peace and security for people in the whole region. There must also be a recognition of the bravery of many peace campaigners in Russia who have opposed the war and are now in prison as a result. All wars end in a peace process, and I hope we can get to that point much more quickly.
I have to raise the uncomfortable truth of the contrast between the way Ukrainian refugees are supported by our media and by many politicians and people in our society, and the way refugees from other conflicts are not treated in the same way. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly pointed out that Afghan refugees are still waiting. Many of them have been waiting for months and months just to get papers to get somewhere to live so that they can contribute to and work in our society.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend raises a critical point. Does he agree that it is about time the Home Office looked at some of the restrictions on family members joining? They are still being asked to take the English language test. For a woman in Afghanistan, trying to do that under the Taliban is very challenging.
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is totally correct. In her constituency and mine, there are people who have come from the most awful situations and wars around the world. They want to work and contribute—they are often very experienced and qualified—but are just languishing day in, day out in unsatisfactory and expensive temporary accommodation, unable to contribute to our health service, education service and so many other things. It is a crying shame and a crying waste.
There are victims of other wars in which we as a country have been involved. The war in Iraq created many refugees. The constant bombing in Palestine by Israel’s occupying forces also creates refugees in that region, in Libya and around the world. In Yemen, which is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, there has been constant bombing for a very long time by Saudi forces, which are armed and supplied by Britain. If we are serious about peace in the world and serious about these issues, we must question our own policies and our own activities. It is a bit strange when our Prime Minister quite rightly condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then, at the same time, asks Saudi Arabia to supply us with more oil, because we are not buying oil or gas from Russia—we did not buy that much gas from Russia anyway—and asks it to co-operate. Lewis Hamilton and others have done more for human rights in Saudi Arabia than the British Government by simply speaking out against the human rights abuses that exist there. We must be consistent and clear in what we do—consistent and clear on the issue of human rights whether or not there is, as a result, an economic difficulty or cost.
None of these wars has happened by accident. I have mentioned a number, but there are many more around the world. This is also about the policies that led to them. A few days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and I had an interesting meeting with Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian national, who was taken to Guantanamo Bay. He suffered grievously there—waterboarding, torture, isolation, sleep deprivation, bright lights, loud music and everything else—for years. I was amazed by how rational he was in his discussions and observations of what had gone on there. He got out and is now teaching people about the dangers of it. He works in the Netherlands and other places to draw attention to it and is a writer of plays and so on. We have to ask ourselves how an innocent man ended up in Guantanamo Bay, other than through the atmosphere created by the war on terror by George Bush and others before 2003. Then we have to ask ourselves about how we get to the truth of these matters, and this is what I want to conclude with. The truth about these matters is that there was a long-term plan by the United States and others to invade Iraq through the war on terror—we can remember the axis of evil speech by George Bush in 2002.
There was also one journalist who told the world the truth about all this. Julian Assange revealed the truth about US matters, about what it was doing, about the war in Iraq, about Afghanistan and about the treatment of people. He revealed the truth. He will go down in history as a journalist who exposed what was going on, in the same way that others exposed what German rearmament was about in the 1930s, and human rights abuses in other places around the world, including in the Vietnam war, the Afghan war—all the Afghan wars for that matter—and others. Yet, he is in Belmarsh, a maximum security prison in this country, just a few miles from this House, and is not in a good physical state. Anybody in Belmarsh, particularly those who are not guilty of anything, will not be in a good physical state. Obviously, the court cases have gone on. At the moment, there are no legal processes going on, which is why I am able to bring this subject up in the House. I just ask for a sense of understanding of what Julian Assange has contributed to the world in trying to bring truth to power about what has actually happened. I would hope that this House would recognise that those who expose injustices and abuse are eventually remembered and recognised.
I will give a parallel: an unknown shipping clerk in Liverpool, E.D. Morel, observed things that were going back and forth from what was then the Belgian Congo in the late 19th and early 20th century. He started to investigate the appalling abuses of human rights in the Congo. He was vilified and attacked for doing so, but he persevered and prevailed. Eventually, he came to this House, becoming a Member and a Minister and so on. He exposed the truth and eventually saved lives in the Congo.
That tradition of people speaking out against abuses of human rights and injustice when they find them, whatever the consequences for themselves, is something we should revere, welcome and support. We should not allow Julian Assange to be confined to prison in this country and possibly removed to the United States, where he would face a lifetime sentence—or even several lifetime sentences, in the ridiculousness of some of their legal decisions—and never see the light of day or be able to write again.
We need to think very carefully about what freedom of speech is. If we do not defend those who defend the right to know, and ensure that we get the right to know, we demean ourselves in the process. I hope that over Easter people will reflect on that, and our Ministers in the Home Office and other Departments will think for a moment about the consequences of denying freedom to somebody who has ensured that there is at least an understanding of how some of these atrocious wars and abuses of human rights came about.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who does have to educate certain senior figures in the civil service about where and what the Black Country is, but that has given them a very good indication. My word to them is that if they mug up on those sorts of things, I am not sure that he will give them an easier ride at the Public Accounts Committee, but it might mean that they have a slightly smoother route through and certainly fewer demands for visits to the Black Country as a result, although I am sure they are always pleased to visit.
I declare an interest that I am a leaseholder of a building with cladding, although I am not being required to pay for its replacement thanks to the developer stepping up, and I am the landlord of a private rented property. Today I will talk about housing, homelessness and all the housing issues in Hackney. Everybody in Hackney has a different housing issue; we have a huge range of challenges that are different for different sectors.
Homelessness and overcrowding are immense in my constituency. We often talk here, particularly at the moment, about the cost of living, but the real cost for many of my constituents is that they do not have a stable home to live in. As of June 2020, we had more than 8,000 households in temporary accommodation, which accounts for roughly one in 35 residents in the borough. The expenditure on temporary accommodation has increasingly gone up.
Families are now typically living in hostels for three years or more. During lockdown, in fact, a woman was living in one with her seven-year-old daughter and was working while her daughter was home-schooling in the same room. That was not uncommon. Those who are lucky enough to have access to a council tenancy or a private temporary tenancy are often living in very overcrowded conditions. In council properties, often one family lives in the living room and another in the bedroom. Families with many children often live in a one-bedroom flat or, as in the case of a woman I spoke to the other day, her four children have bunk beds in one bedroom and she sleeps in the living room. This is a real challenge. We talk about levelling up and there is also talk about the covid divide, with many communities or individuals being in even more difficult circumstances than others, but this is endemic. I have seen families with toddlers who have grown into teenagers and young adults while they have been unable to move out.
Young adults are not able to start in their own home, and why not? Because even if they could find somewhere to rent privately, the rent levels in the private rented sector are enormously high. As of September last year, the median monthly rent in Hackney is £1,600, but for a one-bedroom apartment it is £1,350 a month and for a three-bedroom apartment it is £2,220 a month. That is completely out of the reach of most working people, and even well-paid key workers struggle on that basis. This is causing a crisis for families, but also for many of our services because people have to travel a long way in to work, particularly in our schools and our heath service. There really is no prospect for them, and there is no prospect for those in overcrowded social housing of moving in.
I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at changing some of the rules for renting privately, because as well as the barriers of cost, there are huge barriers for those who rent privately. More people rent privately in Hackney than live in their own owned housing, and more people rent in social housing than both of those combined. The private rented sector is growing and significant, and those people have very few rights. Recently, the Public Accounts Committee looked into this and, frankly, it is a dog’s breakfast. It is good that the Government are looking at this, but there is a lot of hope out there, and I wait to see what the Government will deliver to make sure that tenants have far more rights, better rights and easier routes to redress. For many tenants, the idea of taking their landlord to court and going through such a process is too costly and time-consuming, and many people do not even get past the first hurdle. It is important that landlords remember that they are in the business of letting homes, and it is the homes bit that is too often forgotten.
There are serious concerns about house prices in Hackney South and Shoreditch, as well as in Hackney as a whole, and indeed in London. It is now pretty much impossible for anyone on the average wage to buy. A typical two-bedroom modern flat will be marketed at £750,000. I should perhaps repeat that for those who think I may have slipped a nought into the wrong place: £750,000. I suspect that that would buy someone significantly more in the Black Country. It means that even rich MPs would struggle to get on the housing ladder, and it is impossible—it is out of the reach—for those living in overcrowded housing or the private renters who want to put down roots.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that at the root of all the problems she has mentioned—the extraordinary levels of overcrowding we are seeing, with even very disabled children growing up in totally unsuitable properties—is the failure to build social housing, and there is nothing about that in the current Government proposals? They have proposals on social housing, but nothing to increase the stock significantly, and that is the only way we are going to build affordable properties for the people she is talking about.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am proud of the fact that, under the current Mayor of London, we have seen 11,000 council housing and social housing starts, and the mayor of Hackney has made it a key priority. However, for pretty much every council house built, authorities have to build a private house for sale at the rates I have mentioned in order to cross-subsidise. This crisis has been looming for some time, but it is just getting worse, and we do need to see more supply. Every Budget—when we see the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box—fuels house prices, which one could say is a dividend for homeowners, but it is absolutely terrible for those trying to get out of private renting and get on to the ladder or for those who need that social housing so desperately. This is a really serious concern, and we need to see a big step change on this issue.
The other big housing issue is of course cladding. We have at least 93 buildings in Hackney classed as high risk for cladding, but many more with small amounts of cladding need their wretched EWS1 form, and this is proving really difficult. We have so many families who need to move because of the size of their family but who cannot do so because they cannot sell. I recently met a group of residents who have had to move for their job, but they have had to let their property. Although the Government keep making promises about support for leaseholders, they are now saying that they will not help those landlords. However, they are landlords because they could not sell, not because they chose to be. There may be differences between such landlords and investment landlords, but that is a real concern. It was their home that they wanted to live in, and they just cannot sell it because of the EWS1 form and the cladding.
I keep getting constituents writing to me saying, “The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised that we would not have to pay a penny.” All power to the Secretary of State’s elbow to get developers to pay and to get the problem sorted out, but we need to see the concrete proposals on how that will happen, because, at the moment, leaseholders are still on the hook and still cannot sell their properties. Their lives are on hold while they are forking out huge amounts of money on extra insurance, and some still on waking watch—that is still happening. One developer told me recently that, for one development alone, the insurance premium has gone up from £50,000 to £400,000 a year. Those are enormous costs for ordinary people, not all of whom are wealthy; indeed, many live in shared ownership accommodation but are caught in leasehold properties.
Finally, I turn to the Metropolitan police, where we have seen a horrendous set of issues in the last few months and year. Child Q is a Hackney child, and she was degraded by the experience she had to suffer. However, it is not just about Child Q; there is a wider set of issues, including misogyny at Charing Cross police station. There is a culture issue in the Met. We have an opportunity—I look to the Minister on this—because the Home Secretary along with the Mayor of London will appoint the new commissioner of the Metropolitan police. We need somebody who can drive that culture change through and, dare I say, consider whether they might split the Metropolitan police by separating the counter-terrorism function from the day-to-day policing of London. It has got too big—it has grown like Topsy—and that is one of the contributing factors.
I cannot express enough to the Minister how triggering the treatment of Child Q has been, particularly but not only to black women in my constituency—black men, too—who have gone through real difficulties and had terrible handling by the police back in the day, and their children are still being stopped and searched far more often than their white counterparts. The anger is palpable and the hurt is real. Much more needs to be done in the short term. Perhaps we need to introduce proper training into our schools on people’s rights when they are stopped by a police officer. We have policing by consent, but we need to equip our young people so that they know what consent they have given and that they can acquiesce politely while knowing their rights and that the Met should treat them politely, too. We need strong, new leadership—all power to the elbows of those recruiting that—to change the culture in the Met, and that needs to happen now.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Tony Sewell for his dedication to public service. She is right to raise this issue, and I was disappointed to see Nottingham University endorsing cancel culture. Those sorts of actions prevent ethnic minorities from participating in public life.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As we know, asbestos in school buildings is still a real problem, and something that we ought to be much more concerned about. Asbestos more generally is an issue, and if we could have a debate on that in Government time, we might also have the opportunity to discuss the asbestos leak that took place in this building but was not notified to most people, except through HuffPost’s good journalism, with about 170 people now on 40-year health watches as a result. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the vital issue of asbestos and health?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to say that this is an important issue. She will be aware that the case to which she refers within the House of Commons is currently subject to a Health and Safety Executive investigation, and I expect the result of that to be made public once it has concluded. I assure her that House of Commons teams working in those areas take such matters seriously, and a number of procedures are in place to try to prevent such a leak again. Once that investigation has concluded, I am sure that any recommendations will be fully implemented, and we can be assured that those working and operating as contractors in this building are safe.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster
Meg Hillier Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but there is a danger that he is doing what I am very concerned about, which is keeping going the debates about many options. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but we are getting to the crunch point now. It does feel a bit like groundhog day. We are, once again, debating these options and, in essence, what has changed?
What has changed, as others, including the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), have said, is that we are spending more money: £127 million a year, according to the National Audit Office. What has not changed is that we still need to do a major refurbishment. What has changed is the personnel involved. I caution new Members in particular that it can be tempting to say—I think the Leader of the House is dangling this in front of us regularly—that Parliament has changed, people have changed and there are new views. But that is the thing about this place: it is a constantly renewing democracy and place. Unfortunately, with the byzantine structure of Committees and Members changing all the time, if we take the view that we always have to revisit everything because it is a new group of people working here, we will never settle on tough decisions. The Government are the same. How long does a Government Minister last or indeed a permanent secretary in Whitehall? I have been the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for six years. Only one permanent secretary is still in post, in a different Department, from six years ago. We therefore have to recognise, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, that we are the custodians now and we need to make the decision.
It is worth noting—this is a bit of a back-of-the-envelope calculation, so there is probably somebody I have missed out—that there have been three Clerks of the House, two Mr Speakers, at least three Leaders of the House, three Prime Ministers and three Parliaments since the Joint Committee reported in 2016. As others have pointed out, it was on 31 January 2018 that this House made a decision to get on with it. It has been a very slow process since. There is a danger that this will be endlessly revisited, with new Parliaments, changes to the public finances and everyone coming up with a great new idea about what the different needs are.
Let me re-emphasise, as the former Leader of the House the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire did, that there is a risk of catastrophic fire here. There have been 29 incidents between 2015 and 2020. There are 24 fire wardens on three shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not long before lockdown, one of the fires was found on a weekday. If it had been a weekend, the wardens’ patrolling pattern meant that they might not have picked it up. Mechanical and engineering is a mess. Anyone who has been down to the basement can see the problems there, with hot water next to electricity. This has all been highlighted many times, as have issues with the sewers; you do not need to ask someone where the lavatories are in this place because you can sniff them out most of the time, and staff have to work in that stinking smell. The great stink got the sewers of London built, but the great stink might finally get us out of this place. There are holes in carpets, with more seeming to emerge even in lockdown, and dangerous voids, top and bottom of the building.
The main change is that a lot of money has been spent to keep people safe in the event of a catastrophic fire. So we have all got fire alarms in our rooms and in Committee Rooms, but that does not save the building; if the worst happened, that is what would happen. That is a real issue because this is a grade I listed building, a heritage building and a UNESCO site, so there is no option here. Ultimately, the Government—it is the Treasury’s responsibility—under UNESCO rules, have to make sure that this building survives. Much of the work that has been done, with this £127 million a year, will have to be redone once major works start.
The Leader of the House has used his position to delay, not progress. Of course we have to keep an eye on things, but we have set up a structure that allows us to do that. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that there is a danger that it is seen as self-indulgent to discuss this today. We should not be discussing the principle of what we do and when we do it; if more Members were here talking about the businesses that could benefit from this, that would be a good thing. There are many other issues we could be discussing. Rather than this, we could be talking about jobs and opportunities for people who have had a really tough time over the past year. The Leader of the House is proposing options that would put staff at risk. I do not want to be responsible for any staff in this building once we start ripping out asbestos. He is also proposing options that would lead to a lack of clarity over who is responsible. If we had a hybrid set of working, are the contractors, the Sponsor Body or the Delivery Authority responsible, or is the Clerk of the House? If something went wrong, who is in charge in that complex set-up? We need to be clear that those are dangerous and risky options.
The Leader of the House speaks of Parliament agreeing it, but I remind him, as others have, that Parliament has agreed with this. We must be careful about endlessly opening up options, and having a start-and-stop approach. There is a sense that this is a bit like musical chairs, with everybody believing or hoping that they will not be standing when the music stops, a bit like as it is with covid-19. I recall that just over a decade ago, probably about 12 years ago, I was serving on a pandemic planning sub-committee of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, where I was a bit-part player in discussing then how to deal with a pandemic. It is apparent that over time that drops down the agenda because nobody thinks that they are going to be the Minister in charge when the pandemic hits. It dropped down the priority list, but this issue cannot, as we know what we want to do and there is a real risk here.
Of course, value for money is very important—I am clear about that. I chair the Public Accounts Committee for a reason: I believe that every pound of public money saved is a pound for the Government of the day to spend on something else that they consider to be important, on the basis of the manifesto on which our voters elected them. That means that the business case is important, but it will cost billions and billions of pounds to do this work. Let us be honest about that. Let us forget this £4 billion figure that is being bandied around. We know it will cost a lot of money, but it cannot be done on the cheap—there is not a cheap option for a building such as this. We have to acknowledge that and accept that we are the custodians and we have to make the tough choices. This must be value for money and in response to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) let me say that, yes, there needs to be an envelope of costs, contingency needs to be built in and we need to be rigorous about testing and pursuing people on that. That is why we have made sure that the National Audit Office looks regularly at this and that the Sponsor Body works closely with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, so that each step of the way the project planning is in place to make sure we are doing this.
Of course we should not gold-plate things. We certainly do not need to gold-plate temporary provision, because it will be temporary. It needs to be functional and workable. We have shown over the past year that we can be very adaptable and their lordships seem to be even more adaptable, able to work in different ways. We work in our constituencies and in all sorts of different environments. We do not have to have the perfect solution, but we need a solution for the time we are out of the building.
We must also plan to ensure that businesses up and down the country are enabled and prepared to bid for the contracts that will come up. Some years ago, I visited New South Wales ahead of the London Olympics to see how businesses in New South Wales had been worked with to get them ready to understand what they needed to do to bid for contracts for the Olympics. We can do a similar engagement project, but while we are debating whether or not we do it, we are going to be a long way off getting to that point of supporting such businesses to get jobs.
All the evidence shows that any major project will get more expensive and more complex the longer it goes on, so we need to decide and we need to get on with it quickly. We should not be prolonging it, and we need to have a focus on what needs to be done, including setting the parameters and making sure that good governance is in place to get on with it. This will also help us control costs, which of course we are all concerned about, but we must not be concerned about the big figure at the beginning, because there will be a big price tag. There is no getting around that.
Let us just run through the governance. We have the Sponsor Body, which is a group of professionals who understand how to manage projects, and it will oversee the Delivery Authority. Of course, Members—we have heard from some of them—are represented on those bodies. In the House in the past, and let us look at the Elizabeth Tower as an example, reporting to the Clerk of the House through the system in the House has not worked. The Elizabeth Tower refurbishment started off with a price tag of £29 million, and it ended up at £80 million. So the idea that somehow we are passing responsibility over and losing control of costs is hardly borne out. We need to keep a close eye on the costs, but the idea that it can be done in the old-fashioned way through the House systems has not proved to work. I will not highlight it, but I recommend to Members the National Audit Office report of last year that looked at the Elizabeth Tower, when the House’s own auditors recognised some of the challenges and problems, such as mission creep and the inability to bottom-out costs at the beginning.
We need to get on with it, and we need to open up the opportunities. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire says, doing nothing is not an option. We must not reopen every option every time we debate this. We all aspire to run the country—sadly, my party is not running the country at the moment—but if we want to be in that position, we need to show that we can boldly take difficult decisions. Government is not about being popular and always choosing an easy option; it is usually the opposite. Proper governance is actually about making difficult decisions.
I want to put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire. She did not mince her words today, and I thank her for that. It is not a political game. It is not about pitting London against the country. It has just got to be done, and if we do it well and we do it right, we will be thanked, ultimately, because we will have saved this building and created jobs around our country.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker: our mutual friend, Mike Weatherley, whose death was sadly reported today? He and I coincided—we were elected to Parliament at the same time—and he was a friend to every Member of this House. He was a kindly, good, decent, hard-working person. We send our deepest sympathies to his family and pray for the repose of his soul.
This has indeed been an excellent debate. I am grateful to everyone who participated, particularly the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has taken a very constructive and thoughtful approach to this matter. I think that we can work together, because it is one of those occasions where there is much more agreement than perhaps there appears to be on the surface. I will try to go through that and, at the same time, try to respond to all the contributions that have been made.
First, let me record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for representing us on the Sponsor Body, for the work that he is doing, and for the extremely measured and thoughtful approach that he characteristically takes, pointing out to us that ultimately we will have to make choices. We will have to decide on what we want, to consider phasing, and to work out how much is renewal and how much is straight restoration. This will be fundamental to how the scheme is costed in the end.
I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who unfortunately is not in her place for the wind-ups. Given that she was the Leader of the House, she knows where this programme began and piloted it through its beginning stages very successfully. She made some important points about recognising that the work has to be done. That is fundamental. There is nobody who disagrees with that at all. The work needs to be done, and it needs to be done as soon as is practicable. There has been absolutely no delay in my period as Leader of the House. Indeed, I would argue the reverse.
Interestingly, my right hon. Friend gave an example of the stone falling on to the car of our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. That was not at the Palace; it was at Norman Shaw. That is why the works that we are doing have to be phased, and the work on Norman Shaw is taking place. I can tell the House that the plans for Norman Shaw are under way and the proposals are being made, and, as we are not now intending effectively to bulldoze Richmond House, they are going ahead faster. The planning permission went in, I think, in March and the work on Norman Shaw North should have its own decant in December 2021, with external works commencing in January 2022 and completion of the project in October 2025.
I have to tell the House that if we were continuing with the Richmond House programme, were waiting for that to happen and had not used Richmond House as the decant option for Norman Shaw, we would not even have started on Norman Shaw until 2025, let alone completed it. I must therefore reject the idea that things have not been happening.
Derby Gate, which of course creates some of the space for people moving out of Norman Shaw, will see people moving into it on 31 July this year. The preliminary works are taking place, and they are taking place faster because we have been trying to get the scheme under control. That is the second part of the work. The first part was to recognise that it needed to be done, but the second part was to look at the cost.
When I became Leader of the House, in one of my early meetings on restoration and renewal, it was suggested to me—this is not a formal forecast—that the cost range was likely to be £10 billion to £20 billion. That is ridiculous. It is not an amount that even those of us who are most committed to the project think is reasonable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said in his excellent speech that the figures for Richmond House had risen to £1.6 billion. I knew that the combined cost of moving the two Chambers was £1.5 billion, but my right hon. Friend was suggesting £1.6 billion just for Richmond House.
The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), as always, made a thoughtful contribution in which he spoke about decant. My opposition to decant has never been decant per se; it has always been a means to an end on cost. We were getting schemes that were so ridiculously expensive that one had to push back and say, “Surely there is a better and cheaper way of doing it.” Whether we can get it down to the £46 million suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I am not certain, but £1.6 billion is not proper stewardship of public funds.
Meg Hillier
The right hon. Gentleman talks about cost, but we of course do not know what the cost is until the business case comes through, and I think that needs to be clear. Is he really suggesting that if we do the work around us, that will be cheaper than if we move out and do it in one hit and then come back?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have not begun to suggest that, and I am very glad that the hon. Lady has intervened on me, because the figures given by the Public Accounts Committee on the £127 million of running costs that we are expending are not very well explained in the Committee’s report. If she wants to explain them, I would be delighted to give way.
Meg Hillier
The figures quoted are from the National Audit Office, and the full details are in the National Audit Office’s work. They are then simply quoted in the Public Accounts Committee report. It is National Audit Office work that is done to get those figures in the report.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Those figures seem to relate to the £44 million spent on the Northern Estate project, the £24.6 million for Canon Row, the £15.9 million for fire safety, the £12.6 million for the Elizabeth Tower and the £4.8 million for IT, almost all of which will continue regardless of how R and R is done. Therefore I am concerned about the impression being given by this figure that there is a massive increase in cost because we have not yet moved out. I do not think that is accurate, but if the hon. Lady would like to give more elaboration on the figures, I would find it very helpful.
I have tried to look for further details to understand what is being quoted in that £127 million figure that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire and alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I think it is important to get an understanding that a lot of the costs we are being told are extra are actually preliminary, because we are getting on with the work to get things ready.
There is the crucial work—a number of people have mentioned Notre Dame—on fire safety. We should bear in mind that the fire safety work has been tested and completed, with the exception of the Victoria Tower, in the past few months, and includes: 7,112 automatic fire detection devices; 1,364 locations for fire stopping compartmentation, dividing the Palace into 16 compartments; 4,126 sprinkler heads in the basement of the Palace, so the risk that we have heard about of a conflagration from the basement is very, very significantly reduced; and the 8 miles of pipe that I have referred to before.
It is really important to understand that a lot of work is already going on and ties in with the outline business case, which is being carried out to schedule by the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority. That is the right way to proceed, because a number of people have mentioned the Elizabeth Tower, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and what went wrong there with the cost going up from £29 million to £80 million. The key thing we learn from that is that we need to do the outline business case in detail.
I actually think that had we said to the British people, “To redo Big Ben, a national symbol, would cost us £80 million”, the British people would have said that that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I think the criticism came because the expense rose as the process unfolded. We want to ensure that that does not happen with restoration and renewal and that we get a figure that is realistic.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Absolutely, but within limits. The £10 billion to £20 billion would, I think, test the patience of most of our voters. That is why I do not think that this House should go blindly into approving or delegating this scheme without knowing precisely what the cost is. This debate is therefore important, because the outline business case is being worked on as we speak. Those involved have begun the survey work, and they are getting on with it, which is really important. But if they come back to us in early 2023 and say, “The cost is going to be £10 billion to £20 billion.” there will be a vote in this House to approve it or not. I have a nasty feeling that if it is at that level, we will not approve it, and yet the work must be done. So now is the time to give the message that we are willing to accept a little inconvenience and to have more restoration than renewal, and that while we have to ensure that disability access is done properly, we recognise that the last percentage of disability access is the most expensive. There are therefore compromises that we will be called upon to make.
Meg Hillier
On the Elizabeth Tower—I alluded to this, but perhaps I should quote directly from the NAO report—Parliament’s internal auditors identified, among other things,
“inadequate project governance; high turnover of project staff; and poor cost estimation.”
That really encapsulates the things that we do not want to get wrong with this project. It will cost a lot of money, but we need to be sure that we have had proper governance and proper cost destination and that we are presenting to the public a figure that is real, even though it will not be cheap.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am absolutely at one with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful for that helpful intervention. That is why the outline business case is being worked on now. We hope to have some preliminary idea about it early next year, with the vote on it in 2023.
Let me return to some of the individual contributions. My neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) emphasised the symbolism, the need to get on with things and the stonework. It is important that, under the Act, the Commission—I can assure the House that the Commission is very aware of this—is allowed to carry out repairs before the R and R body takes over. We have scaffolding up, so it seems sensible to try to do repairs where we can. There is no point in having scaffolding, as it currently is, just acting like the slips, waiting to see what catches come its way, although of stonework rather than cricket balls. So I agree with what my right hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) seemed to want to become Old Father Thames, which was a rather charming way of suggesting how we should rebuild the Palace. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) emphasised the limits on public money, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He also encouraged, as did many others, UK-wide working and opportunities, and pressed for answers on timescales, which we will get in the outline business case.
I find myself in a very high level of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who pointed out that this is a place of work. Although it is nice that tourists come to see it, that must not interfere with its work as a legislature, and if we need to do building work in August, it cannot be open to the public in that time. Getting that priority right is very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, “Get on with it!” I hope that I have persuaded him that we are getting on with it, and that is what everybody wants to do. As I have set out, the preliminary works are very much already happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West wanted a date for the Elizabeth Tower, and I will give him a date. I am told that the bells will ring in early 2022. Now, “early”, when used by the civil service, is one of those things that I have learned about in my brief time in Government, and early 2022 could mean some time in December, but it would be early December. However, there is a better promise, which is that the scaffolding will be down by summer 2022—“summer”, of course, is an equally elastic term. What particular point in summer, I do not know, but we are almost there. The bells were being tested this morning, and it was really rather wonderful to hear them—it was uplifting. My hon. Friend made the crucial point, which was so helpful to the argument, that the Richmond House planning would have delayed us until 2027, which would have been an added complication and problem with the whole programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) brought his own experience to bear in a very interesting way, and talked about how we look after customers. He said that we do not inconvenience them, but that we sometimes have to recognise the need to keep going regardless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made an inspiring and sparkling speech. She was against gold-plating, as am I, and did not want a blank cheque in these economic circumstances. She reminded us of Churchill’s view of how buildings shaped our democracy. She also talked about what it would look like to our constituents if we decided to do things in a sort of Liberace way—I am not very keen on doing things in a Liberace way. [Interruption.] I am being mobbed out from the Front Bench by the Deputy Chief Whip. As he has 330 votes in his pocket, I must not ever dare to disagree with him; otherwise, Government business might become problematic.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned opportunities and the need for there to be a plan for jobs. I think his basic plea was for every member of his constituency to be employed on the parliamentary estate. He referred to apprenticeships. Apprenticeships will be important and will have a long-running benefit for the heritage of this country because the stonemasons who are trained here will then be stonemasons who work on our great cathedrals and other heritage buildings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) mentioned the symbolism of this place and told us very clearly—I think this is the right way to put it—that we cannot duck the question. If we duck the question, we will end up grousing, to carry the bird thought through. But that is what we are doing now: we are not ducking the question.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) spoke. I fear that even now, nearly 18 months after the general election, one’s heart still leaps at the thought that Sedgefield is a Conservative seat. Leaving that little point aside, he mentioned what an iconic institution this is with its 1 million visitors. Follow the cash, as his old boss used to say to him, is what we must definitely be doing. The important point is that it is very hard to future-proof in terms of technology, because we think we are future-proofing but the technology goes off in some other direction that we did not think about. So we have to be open to a variety of opportunities.
This is a long-term project and it will come at very considerable cost to the taxpayer. The solutions we arrive at must therefore be the best option for the preservation of the Palace of Westminster and in the public interest, prioritising value for money. This is fundamentally a parliamentary project. I cannot remember who said that actually it is a fundamentally House of Commons project, because the symbolism of this House as the democratic House is what people think about when they look at the Palace of Westminster. I have the greatest admiration and respect for their lordships, but when people look at this palace, they think of the home of the world’s oldest democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made that fundamentally important point. It is a parliamentary project. It is a House of Commons project. We are the ones who are accountable to taxpayers.
I have set out my Government’s views and other hon. and right hon. Members have set out theirs. I am confident that the restoration and renewal programme team will listen to those carefully, and in the coming months the Sponsor Body will engage with MPs and peers to seek their views on how the proposals should develop. It is vital that parliamentarians give their time, energy and expertise to this process so that collectively we shape a programme that safeguards both the Palace of Westminster and taxpayers’ money, and will make St Peter proud.
Virtual Participation in Debate
Meg Hillier Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to listen to what is being said and to what was said in the urgent question last week and in the statement that the Backbench Committee graciously gave to my Committee last Thursday. He could be the hero if he were to accept this amendment. It would show compassion and generosity, and it would show his courtesy, because he is one of the most courteous Members of this Parliament, who, in all his time here, has always ensured that Parliament is sovereign—in fact, he has campaigned very hard to make sure that Parliament is sovereign—and that Members of this House are heard, from all Benches.
I thank the many hon. and right hon. Members who responded to the call for evidence from the Procedure Committee on this important matter and expressed a majority view on the exclusion from debates, not just in this place but in Westminster Hall. Let us be clear: the Government motion does not extend to Westminster Hall. The reason for this furore—the reason that we are here—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was unable to take part in the debate in Westminster Hall on the disease that she is suffering from. Unless the Government are willing to look at extending the virtual proceedings to Westminster Hall, that will still be a problem. The Procedure Committee stands ready to work with the Government to find ways to allow more debates, perhaps more Adjournment debates in this Chamber, so that Members can take part—Members like my hon. Friend. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please to think about how this will look to those of our hon. and right hon. Friends who are not here for other reasons.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made a very important intervention when he said that there is a difference about the situation here. Nobody is asking to not be at work. We are all at work. The idea that Members of Parliament have not been working over the course of the past few months when they have not been able to be here, or we are not in the full Chamber, is ludicrous given the hours that are spent on Zoom calls and Teams meetings, and the many, many pieces of constituent correspondence that we are all dealing with. In those few weeks at the beginning of the lockdown when people had such confusion and there was no certainty, the Government did an enormous amount of good in terms of the financial support and the guidance that was issued, but right at the beginning, everything was unknown.This was, as everyone says, an unprecedented situation.
Members across the House were dealing with constituents who had the most difficult and heart-rending stories. We wanted to do our best for our constituents, and we were doing that from home because Parliament was in recess. We could not ask questions of Ministers in the way we normally would by being here in the Chamber. Again, I pay tribute to the Government for the amount of access that Ministers made available to Members, to allow us to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. We are all working incredibly hard, whether we are working here, working in our offices in the precincts of the Palace or working at home. Nobody is asking not to work; it is merely that Members who cannot be here for reasons other than being clinically extremely vulnerable, including self-isolating because they have been told to by the Government, should be able to take part in all our proceedings.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As the right hon. Lady highlights, people are working very hard, and I pay tribute to members of the Public Accounts Committee, including the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). Two of the Committee’s members are self-isolating, and even on a hard-working Committee such as the Public Accounts Committee, they are two of the hardest working Members. It is of great sadness to me that those Members are unable to contribute to debate and that this issue has been kicked around like a football when it could be so easily resolved. I urge the Leader of the House to allow this amendment and to spare the pain of Members who have been unable to represent their constituents by participating in debates. The issue could be dealt with tonight, and then those excellent Members could contribute fully in the House.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady is right. Select Committees, of which we are both Chairs, have conducted their business virtually, with some physical proceedings to take evidence. She and I have both chaired meetings from Committee Rooms, but we have managed, as have all Select Committees, to take evidence, to work and to produce numerous reports on the basis of virtual participation, which includes all Members. Nobody has not been allowed to take part because their situation means that they cannot get a doctor’s note. Every single member of every Committee has been able to play a full part in the Committee. I do not understand why, on a matter of House business, the Government are determined to prevent that from happening.
Members spend years getting elected to this place. People give up their careers, and they lose their families in far too many cases. They do incredible work to get to this place. As an MP, I want to be in this place—I want to be here. There are Members who cannot be here at the moment, but they want to work. They want to have the chance to carry on their work and to be heard.
As I said, this is about the view of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip would never do this, but if proxy votes were used inappropriately —if a Member’s proxy vote ends up being cast in a Lobby that they would not want it to be cast in because they did not know this debate was coming, or if a Member is not here because they saw the business and were happy to believe that there would not be any votes—it would be a great shame. It will cause resentment, I suspect, if the motion goes through without a proper vote by all Members.