Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Tim Loughton Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes a very good point. We of course recognise the needs of the poorest in our society, and as a Government and a Parliament, we always seek to alleviate poverty, but this is a very significant issue. We want to preserve for future generations our historic building, which is a UNESCO world heritage site and the home of our democracy. Frankly, we have to work from somewhere, and this building is extraordinarily difficult and complex to review. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Finance Committee.

This Parliament will have the opportunity to look at the outline business case, which will set out clearly the costs and deliverables during 2021, once we have established the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority in statute. I hope the House will agree to do that today, so that those bodies can get on with the work to ensure that we get the best value for taxpayers’ money.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My concern, putting on my hat as chair of the all-party group on archaeology, is not with what is in the Bill but with what is not in the Bill. The Leader of the House will be aware that when the underground car park was built some decades ago, proper archaeological conservation did not take place, and part of the old palace of Edward the Confessor was probably lost. Given the importance of the UNESCO world heritage site and the working democratic Parliament that this is, will she strengthen the Bill by taking on board the recommendations from Historic England about recognising

“the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster”

in the Bill, so that travesties such as that cannot happen during the extensive work we now need to undertake?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. It did in fact come up during the pre-legislative scrutiny, which I am keen to come on to. The decision was taken that this should be a parliamentary project, and what the Government are seeking to do in bringing forward the Bill is merely to facilitate the will of Parliament. We are setting up a Sponsor Body, which will be made up of seven parliamentarians and five external members, so that it can establish a Delivery Authority. Those bodies—the Sponsor Body in consultation with parliamentarians, and the Delivery Authority in consultation with many external stakeholders—will be able to decide the best way to proceed. It was felt that putting restrictions and specific requirements in the Bill might tie the hands of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and we were unwilling to do that. We want them to have the maximum ability to take things forward in the appropriate way, in consultation with all parliamentarians.

Business of the House

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I regularly meet the director general, and I received an update quite recently on this potential industrial action. I am assured that all steps are being taken to ensure that we are all kept safe and that actions are taken to reduce the concerns of members of staff.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House and I share a strong interest in early years and ensuring the best start in life, and she is doing tremendous work chairing the inter-departmental ministerial group. Will she give a progress report on the work of that group and perhaps provide time for this House to debate its findings?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that he and I have for many years shared a huge interest in support for the early years, and I pay tribute to him for his work on the “1001 Critical Days” campaign. The ministerial group has conducted a significant amount of information gathering, and I had a fantastic visit to Manchester with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) just a couple of weeks ago to look at the excellent work being done in children’s centres in her constituency. We are continuing to gather data and hope to come forward with recommendations in the next couple of months.

Proxy Voting

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you for selecting my amendment (d), Mr Speaker. There seem to be two things that we need to concern ourselves with today. The first is whether we agree with proxy voting, and the second is whether we agree with proxy voting on the terms in the motion.

I am rather sceptical about proxy voting for a number of reasons, not least that if debates in this place never changed anybody’s mind or made better legislation, we would have to question why we bother having them at all in the first place. That is a clear part of our role as MPs. What Ministers say at the end of a debate can affect a Member’s vote. Reassurances from Ministers can make a Member take a different line, and that has happened on many occasions.

I am also sceptical because I am not entirely sure that this will deal with the lack of trust in the pairing system. What if the proxy votes the wrong way? What if there is a breakdown in communication? What if the designated proxy is unable to vote, for some reason? This does not mean that there will be none of the same problems with proxy voting as there are with the pairing system. We should not believe that this will be a flawless system. Given that the will of the House is clearly that we should have proxy voting, it is surely incumbent on us to try to make the rules the best we can, and this motion is lacking in a number of areas.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I do not share my hon. Friend’s scepticism, but I do share his attention to detail, and that is lacking in his amendment. He will know that my private Member’s Bill dealing with stillbirths is going through the House of Lords at the moment. I hope that his amendment would extend to women who have suffered stillbirths, who would not be covered by the definition of miscarriage at the moment.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I accept his support in that spirit. If we are going down the route of proxy voting, we have to make sure that it is fair for people in every circumstance. That is the point I want to make. That is why it is important that people who have a serious illness, who are not covered by the motion, are included. Why is the primary carer of someone who is seriously ill less deserving of a proxy vote? Why is someone whose close relative has died less deserving of a proxy vote than those mentioned in the motion? People who have suffered a miscarriage should equally be covered, and I hope the Government will accept my amendment.

We have to look at why fathers and mothers are being treated so differently. The Women and Equalities Committee report, “Fathers and the workplace”, which I think was a unanimous report of the Committee, said that limiting the statutory period to two weeks for fathers is

“particularly inadequate in certain specific circumstances, such as where the mother or baby is ill or has been born prematurely.”

I agree with that report of the Committee, on which I serve. Members of the Committee seem to have been distinctly lacking in arguing for that to be included in the terms of this motion, despite recommending that every other organisation in the country should abide by it. They seem to think that it should not apply to the House of Commons but should apply to every single other organisation.

We have to look at where proxy voting applies, and I hope the Procedure Committee will consider all these things. I do not think that proxy voting should apply to private Members’ Bills, for example, which it does in the motion. Hardly anybody turns up for private Members’ Bills, so it would be rather absurd that someone who never turns up for them on Fridays and never had any intention of doing so will all of a sudden be able to vote in proceedings on them.

The Report of Bills is not really suitable for proxy voting. You might recall, Mr Speaker, that there are sometimes 200 amendments tabled to a Bill on Report in different groupings. We do not know on the day of the vote which ones will be selected for debate or which ones will be voted on. How on earth can a Member give an informed opinion on 200-odd amendments that day when they do not even know which ones are being voted on and which ones will be selected for debate? We should be very wary about extending proxy voting to the Report of Bills.

I must say that there is something distinctly lacking in one of the motions compared with the one in the Procedure Committee report. The Government have missed out one key plank, which I have sought to reinstate, of the report’s proposed motion. It states:

“The Speaker may make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote insofar as it is not provided for in this Order.”

That had in mind something like miscarriages, which is why I have tabled amendment (d).

Equally, the Procedure Committee report says:

“There is an inherent risk to the House’s reputation of Members away from the House casting votes as if they are present in the Chamber and actively following debates. For example, it would be unthinkable”—

the word “unthinkable” is underlined in the report—

“for a motion on committing military personnel to armed conflict to be carried on the basis of proxy votes.”

Yet that has not been excluded from the motion on proxy votes: sending troops to war will still be covered by proxy votes, despite the Procedure Committee saying that that would be unthinkable.

I hope that the Government will accept my amendment (d) as a modest step forward in trying to make this procedure fairer to everybody, irrespective of their circumstances, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will look at all these matters in the round when this comes up for review.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Hon. Members are trying to suggest that the Government are unreasonably withholding money resolutions on a permanent basis, but I have been absolutely clear that they will be brought forward by the Government on a case-by-case basis as necessary. I have tried to explain that the reason that one has not been brought forward for this particular Bill is that the Government have a manifesto commitment to consider the review by the Boundary Commission for England, and we will then consider the right timing for this money resolution.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has detailed the unusually long list of ballot Bills that are queuing to get into Committee, including the excellent Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill in my name. As well as giving clarity on money resolutions, when will she announce the additional sitting Fridays? Is it fit for purpose in 2018 that only one private Member’s Bill can be in Committee at a time and that such Committees can sit only on Wednesdays, meaning that many private Members’ Bills will inevitably fail? Is it not time we sorted out the whole system so that private Members’ Bills get the attention they deserve?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his private Member’s Bill. The House has approved 13 sitting Fridays for this Session and, as I have said:

“Given…this will be an extended Session, we will…expect to provide additional days”.—[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 636.]

In line with Standing Orders, remaining stages of Bills will be prioritised over Second Reading debates on any additional days provided for private Members’ Bills. There are still a number of remaining stages Fridays available for Bills coming out of Committee. The dates available to Members stretch through to 23 November 2018, so at this stage there is no urgency in providing additional days for private Members’ Bills. In fact, tabling a motion later in the current Session will allow us to take into account the progress of private Members’ Bills, as well as of any new recess dates that are announced.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

On the subject of value for money, does the Leader of the House share my concern that, actually, a decant has already happened? The essential maintenance work that is due to happen around the cloisters, which are heavily damaged, for which offices have already been evacuated, has been brought to a halt, with expensive equipment shoring up the stonework of this place. No date for getting on with it has yet been set. That is a huge waste of money and does not bode well for getting on with the more substantive project we are discussing today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes two important points. One is that we do need to get on with it, and the second concerns the importance of planning for this. It is vital that we get good value for taxpayers’ money. Roughly, the projections show that we will be spending £90 million a year, of which roughly half will be throwaway once we get on with R and R, and the other half will be work that needs to be done anyway and will not be throwaway. They are the sorts of numbers we are looking at. We do need to get on and take a decision, but we must fully cost the best value for taxpayers’ money.

I have listened closely to the very real concerns expressed by colleagues—that in some way we might be forced out, never to return to this place. Both of today’s motions are intended to make it explicit that this is not, and will not be, the case. To put the matter beyond doubt, and recognising the depth of concerns from some colleagues, I am happy to confirm today that were the House to agree that we must take action now, the commitment to returning to the Palace will be enshrined in the legislation that the Government will subsequently introduce to set up the sponsor body and delivery authority. It will be on the face of the Bill, putting the matter beyond doubt.

Business of the House

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, which I would be happy to look into on his behalf.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

East Worthing will be much briefer than West Worthing, Mr Speaker, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When are we going to have a debate on the parlous state of children’s social care?

[Mr Speaker]

That was splendidly pithy by the standards of the hon. Gentleman. We are deeply obliged to him.

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is right that it starts at the top. If those in power abuse those beneath them, it creates a culture where abuse becomes endemic throughout the system. I would not say it is only from the top, but that is certainly where it starts and where leadership needs to be shown.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Those of us who have been in this place long enough to have seen the expenses scandal saw how that long-drawn-out process, often subject to apparent obfuscation by this place, was deeply damaging to the integrity not only of this institution but, by implication, of every Member, despite how innocent they might have been. Does the Leader of the House agree that if we are to tackle this problem, it is absolutely essential that our response be swift, robust and wholly transparent? We send out a message to the way the rest of society happens, and we all, however innocent, have a duty to perform in that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is absolutely our intention to make very swift progress—within days. He is also right to point out that there is agreement across parties that this needs to be resolved, and I think, if we all work together, it can be.

Nomination of Members to Committees

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Politics is show business for ugly people, and I am a frustrated actor.

Try as I might, however, I cannot work myself up into a lather about this. I would love to be furious with the Government—I really would—but I cannot be. I get angry very quickly and blow up, and I make some spectacular apologies, but I cannot get too wound up about this.

If the House will indulge me, may I go back in time and revisit the 1970s? From March 1974 until April 1979, the Wilson Government, despite being a minority Administration at times, had a majority on the Committee of Selection for all but three months of their five years in office.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Wilson and Callaghan Governments.

[Mr Walker]

Of course; forgive me. I was only a small child at the time—I was in shorts.

The only time the Wilson Government did not have a majority on the Committee of Selection was when the Labour Chairman, Hugh Delargy, died. From 4 May 1976 Labour’s majority on the Committee was restricted for three months, until 6 August. The majority was then restored after the House wrung out the concession that, when appointing Members to Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection would appoint even numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I want to make some progress. I have given way on countless occasions, and I will try to give way as I progress through the next 45 minutes of my speech.

The history is quite compelling, and I am fascinated by the previous examples:

“he said that in future Committees must reflect the numbers in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister repudiating that?”—[Official Report, 29 April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 551.]

Those are not my words but those of Margaret Thatcher when she railed against the injustices of the then minority Labour Government’s attempted power grab. If this parliamentary jiggery-pokery was an injustice for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s, it should be an injustice for the sons and daughters of Margaret Thatcher in the 2010s.

[Tim Loughton]

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s new-found enthusiasm for the blessed Margaret Thatcher, but are there not two solutions to the problem he is trying to set out? One is to have an Opposition majority on Standing Committees, which would inevitably lead to Government legislation being completely chopped up and returned to the Floor of the House in different form, and the second is to decide every piece of legislation in Committee of the whole House. Both those solutions would cause chaos. Is that what he actually wants?

[Pete Wishart]

All these great concerns about chaos and arrangements that will lead to this and that are an indictment of the Members of this House. They say, “If we were to respect parliamentary arithmetic when it comes to this, all it would lead to is chaos.” That says something about the membership of this House. More critically and crucially, it goes against the advice of the Clerks on the membership of Committees. I say to the hon. Gentleman: have a look at what the Clerks determine as to how these Standing Committees should be established. The fact that this House is prepared, in this vote, to overlook the good advice of the Clerks on a matter they are obliged to determine is a shame on this House.

I want to come back to Margaret Thatcher. I never thought I would be quoting her in the House. It is a novelty, and I do not think I will ever get used to it or be comfortable with it. Let me get back to what I was saying about the 1970s and to what Conservative Members are asking us to do here. They are saying that just because the Labour party did something rotten in the 1970s, we must do something rotten too, in order to address this. That is totally unacceptable to Scottish National party Members who say, “A curse on all your houses. Deal with the parliamentary arithmetic. Accept the realities and get on with it.”

I will make two points about the 1970s, and again I was intrigued when I looked into this. The Harrison amendment was introduced in the most despicable way to this House, by subterfuge and sleight of hand, but the amendment created this set of conditions for a couple of months. At that point, the Labour Chair of the then Committee of Selection died and it stopped; we went back to the normal arrangements and for the rest of that Labour minority Administration, the parliamentary arithmetic of the House was respected. The second thing about that minority Labour Administration was that it became a minority Labour Administration––that Labour Government actually won an election. The current Conservative Government never experienced that a few months ago, so we will take no lessons on this.

Let me deal with this “chaos” thing. Sometimes democracy is not all that convenient and it throws up strange results. Sometimes we just have to get on and deal with it. What you do not do is try to circumvent democracy; what you do not do is table motions like this one, which is so disrespectful to the people who voted in the election.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

How about the hon. Lady and I campaign to ensure that we get that in place? If she agrees with me—some of her hon. Friends look like they might also agree with her—let us do it, because that is surely the solution we need. Now, we will not get that—the Government have made it clear that it will not happen—so what we need is an arrangement for the existing private Members’ Bills that properly reflects the two-year Session.

We have a long affection for private Members’ Bills on these Benches. We had the first SNP private Member’s Bill last year, when Eilidh Whiteford, the former Member for Banff and Buchan, got her private Member’s Bill on the Istanbul convention through the House—it was probably opposed by some Conservative Members. Last year we had four private Members’ Bills in the top 10 —there were some fantastic ones proposed—but we were really pleased for our former colleague Eilidh Whiteford and proud that she managed to get hers through the House last year. We also have two this time round, and I look forward to the fantastic private Members’ Bills to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald)—they are no longer in their places. I look forward to hearing them support their Bills in the House.

We need certainty about private Members’ Bills, because while it is quite easy for some colleagues on the other side of the Chamber to get back and forth to the House of Commons on Fridays, it is not so easy for Members from Scotland. Getting down to the House of Commons to take part in these debates involves getting on a plane which takes probably in the region of four to seven hours. We therefore need certainty about when sitting Fridays will be, and we are grateful to the Leader of the House, who has listed the seven sittings we will secure over the next year.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the person who came fifth in the private Members’ Bill ballot—the highest on this side of the House. By the hon. Gentleman’s logic, he is arguing for more sitting Fridays, when it would be even harder for people from Scotland to come down here, and nowhere in his argument does he acknowledge the fact that the most important stage of a Bill’s progress is Committee, which can go on for weeks and weeks and is not subject to any of the criticisms of what may happen on a Friday. Surely that is an important part of a Bill’s progress, yet he is making no proposals about that, and it is not being curtailed.

Business of the House

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have significantly invested in roads and continue to do so. If he has a specific issue about the M56, I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate, but this Government are fully committed to improving our infrastructure to get the economy going, and to give the boost of even more jobs for people in this country.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House and I share a strong interest in perinatal mental health and giving babies the best start in life, and I declare an interest as chairman of the charity she set up, so I am greatly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to a mental health Bill in the Queen’s Speech and particularly to amending equalities legislation to reduce any discrimination against people with a mental illness problem. Can my right hon. Friend give us an approximate timeline for that legislation, and say what it might cover to promote perinatal mental health and giving our children the best start in terms of mental health in their lives?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which is very dear to his heart and mine. Giving babies the best start in life through secure early bonding is absolutely vital. I am sure that will be a part of our new mental health Act mentioned in the Queen’s Speech and that Members across the House will be keen to put forward their views. The timing of this will be decided in due course.