Deregulation Bill
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman faute de mieux. He is right in what he says, and some Opposition Members are as passionate in their support for the licence fee as he is, as I am or as Tony Hall is but want a change to the rules on how the licence fee is administered and the penalties for those who do not pay. My noble Friend Baroness Corston put forward a cogent and moving argument, to which one would have to be hard-hearted not to listen, on the criminalisation aspects of the current situation. Our point, which won substantially in the House of Lords, was that we have a system that broadly works, and if we want to change it, it would be better to change it in the round, rather than simply changing the licence fee. Let me explain why.
The licence fee is not just about funding the BBC’s programming, although it is true that it provides £3.7 billion of investment in the arts, broadcasting and British culture through the BBC, which it is difficult to see how any other model would deliver to the same degree. In addition, it provides for a degree of competition for quality, as well as for audiences, with the other broadcasters. Thus, ITV wants to make high-quality drama and does so; many of the dramas people often associate with the BBC are actually made by ITV. Likewise, Channel 4 has a special role to play because of the original remit it was given to be edgy, alternative and sometimes naughty. It can perform that public service broadcasting role within the whole ecosystem only if the BBC licence fee also exists and if Channel 4 remains in public hands. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on that one about Channel 4, even if some Conservative Members might not.
The Opposition believe that it is important that there is the licence fee, and that it is a massive investment in production and drama, not just the kind of long-form dramas that exist in American commercial broadcasting and are often very lucrative, but the short-form dramas, such as “The Casual Vacancy”, which has been on the BBC over the past few weeks. It was only three episodes long and it would be very difficult to make in any environment other than one where there is some form of subsidy. In news, current affairs, comedy and so many different areas, the BBC would not be able to perform the same function without the licence fee.
Labour Members have been critical of the difficult time the BBC has had. Of course it always has to strive to make its resources stretch further, but since 2010 it has had not only a tough financial settlement but top-slicing, with a significant amount of money—some hundreds of millions of pounds—going off to fund the roll-out of broadband around the country. In addition, S4C is, in the main, being paid for not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but out of the licence fee, and the World Service is being paid for not by the Foreign Office, but out of the licence fee.
Andrew Bridgen
If the BBC has had such a tough financial settlement and it can no longer go on with a freeze on the licence fee, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the number of managers—not staff, but managers—who work for the BBC and are paid more than the Prime Minister has increased by 10% in the past 12 months?
Chris Bryant
Those are precisely the kinds of points the BBC has to address. It has to make sure that more and more of its money is spent on programming rather than on administration. That is why I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one element of his campaign. He has argued forcefully that the collection system for the licence fee costs some £100 million a year and he has asked whether there is a better way of doing that. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
Of course there are those—I see the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just entered the Chamber at precisely the right moment—who would dismantle the licence fee. He is the only member of the Select Committee who voted to get rid of the licence fee completely. Some people would want to change it, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument to have. My concern about how the Government behaved on this issue is that the version they sent through to the House of Lords meant that the Government could have instituted the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee without consideration of that issue within the whole package of other issues relating to the BBC and charter renewal. In effect, that would have left the door open to dismantling the licence fee without even intending to do so. I am certain that, as right hon. and hon. Members said in the House of Lords, if the Government were to proceed too swiftly, we would simply see a significant fall in licence fee take-up almost immediately. We could be talking about something in the region of £200 million or £250 million, which is more than the cost of all children’s broadcasting.
We need to think carefully about the timing of how we proceed, which is why Labour supported in the House of Lords the amendment that the Government are objecting to today, but not really objecting to. They are doing an adroit about-turn, for which we are deeply grateful. I wish to praise my colleagues in the House of Lords, particularly Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, who made sure that the amendment was carried, with a lot of cross-Bench support and a significant amount of Liberal Democrat support.
Chris Bryant
I believe in the licence fee. I would like to see decriminalisation. If we can achieve decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee in a way that does not dismantle the rest of the licence fee, yes, I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, in order to do that, one cannot simply send forward to Her Majesty legislation which suggests that the Government can introduce that decriminalisation in a few weeks’ time. We have to carry the amendment as tabled, substantially agreeing with the House of Lords, while pretending to disagree. I am grateful that the hon. and learned Gentleman passionately agrees with me. He still has a beating socialist heart and will support the licence fee, as we shall.
Andrew Bridgen
I start by expressing my deep disappointment that the amendment has been added to the Bill by the House of Lords, by a narrow majority of only three noble Members, in order to maintain the status quo and perpetuate criminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence for at least another two years—an eleventh-hour attempt to frustrate the clear will of this House and of the country.
It should be noted that five of the votes in favour in the other place came from the ex-BBC chairman, Lord Grade, in whose name the amendment stood; the ex-BBC “Play School” presenter, Baroness Benjamin; an ex-BBC governor, Baroness Deech; the ex-BBC “EastEnders” actor, Lord Cashman; and BBC producer Viscount Colville. They all spoke in the debate and voted in favour of the amendment.
Chris Bryant
In referring to all those Members, the hon. Gentleman might also point out their slightly wider career paths. For example, Lord Grade was head of ITV and spent most of his career in broadcasting in the commercial sector, so it is fascinating that the commercial sector and the public sector agree.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I do not think it is fascinating; we are not here to debate Members of the other place. We are here to debate the Lords amendments so, Mr Bridgen, I require you to desist from reminding us what happened in the other place, because we can read it, and to direct your comments to the amendments before us.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I much appreciate it. However, I point out to the House that those five noble Members represent more than the majority by which the amendment was carried in the other place.
Having read the Hansard record of the various speeches on the amendment in the upper House, as I am sure all hon. Members have, I found myself with a strong sense of déjà vu. There they were, all the same lines from the multimillion-pound BBC spin machine that we heard when I first proposed the amendment—horror stories about huge changes to the BBC if decriminalisation came in; losses of £200 million of revenue; the emotive closure of all local radio stations and TV stations; and so on. We have heard it all before. I remind hon. Members that there was support for my amendment from across the entire political spectrum in this House. It was signed by 149 right hon. and hon. Members and had the support of many in the Government who were unable to sign.
I draw the attention of the House to the comments of Baroness Corston, who was mentioned by the shadow Minister. She recognised the impact of delays to the implementation of the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence. The longer that takes, the more people will go to prison and the more people will be criminalised. Every year of delay means that another 160,000 of our fellow citizens will be dragged up on criminal charges for non-payment of a £145.50 licence—in effect, a poll tax.
Baroness Corston said:
“I once met a woman who had been imprisoned for three months for failing to pay the £145.50 television licence fee and a £200 fine. If she could not afford the licence fee, surely she was not going to be able to afford a £200 fine as well. During those three months in prison she lost her tenancy and was unable to look after her children, who were taken into care. When she came out of prison, she was told that she could not have local authority accommodation for a family because she did not have her children with her, and when she went to social services she was told that she could not have her children back because she did not have family accommodation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 759, c. 800.]
That is truly shocking.
As I have previously stated in the House, around 50 people a year go to prison as a result of the legislation, a disproportionate number of whom are women—50%, whereas women make up only 4% of the prison population. However, speaker after speaker in the upper House, while noting the comments of Baroness Corston, decided that the spurious claims about a shortfall in BBC funding took precedence.
It is unfortunate that TV licensing enforcement in Scotland was not brought up in the debate in the other place. I would like to correct that and remind the House that the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 introduced a regime whereby an emphasis was placed on alternatives to prosecution, such as fiscal fines. The result was a fall in prosecutions from nearly 2,000 in 2006-07 to just 34 in 2012-13—a 98% reduction. If the BBC PR machine is to be believed, one would think that that would result in a significant fall in compliance with the licence fee. However, as Fergus Reid, the spokesperson for TV Licensing in Scotland, said in 2013:
“the average evasion rate remains at a low of just over five per cent, meaning almost 95 per cent of homes are correctly licensed.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my hon. Friend consider it disproportionate to imprison somebody for non-payment of a relatively small debt? Does he agree that this needs to be corrected, much as some of us love the licence fee?
Andrew Bridgen
Not only do the majority of Members of this House think that the measure is disproportionate; I honestly believe that the majority of people in the country think that it is disproportionate. When I first proposed my amendment and canvassed support for it across the House, it was clear that a large number of Members did not initially think that it was a criminal offence not to pay the TV licence fee. It is within our power to correct this. In England and Wales, more people are imprisoned each year for the non-payment of fines associated with TV licensing than are prosecuted for evasion in Scotland, with little, if any, difference in the evasion rate.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
To be absolutely clear, people are not going to prison for refusing to pay the TV licence fee. The reality is that people are sent to prison for refusing to pay the penalty for not paying the fee in the first place. The former Solicitor-General has intervened a couple of times to suggest the opposite to that.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People go to prison not for not paying the licence fee, but for not paying the fines. However, if someone has hit hard times and has no money and cannot afford a £145.50 licence fee, they are unlikely, as in the example cited by Baroness Corston, to be able to pay a £200 fine, which could result in a mother going to prison and her children being taken into care, with the consequent results for her family on release.
The avoidance rate for payment of the TV licence fee in Scotland is hardly different from that in England, despite the fact that we criminalise 160,000 to 180,000 of our citizens a year and imprison between 30 and 50, whereas Scotland prosecutes only some 30 people a year. Given the sparsity of population in Scotland and human behaviour being what it is, one might consider that there would be a greater chance of evading prosecution in a remote part of Scotland than anywhere in England. I would suggest that there was possibly a higher evasion rate in Scotland prior to the decriminalisation anyway.
Unfortunately, the BBC public relations machine seems to have won the day in the upper House, so I now come to amendment (a) in lieu, tabled in the name of the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin). As he says, there is no doubting the significant cross-party support for the clauses relating to TV licensing during the earlier stages of the Bill, and the firm commitments set out by the Government must be honoured. I therefore support the amendment to ensure that the review by David Perry QC, due in June 2015, to which I had the pleasure of giving evidence only last week, is promptly considered by the Government of the day, and that the changes that I very much hope come about are introduced with a clear timetable.
Whatever future funding mechanism for the BBC is decided at the next charter review, I hope that criminalising more than 160,000 of our fellow citizens each year, an estimated 75% of whom are women, will no longer be part of it. I therefore urge the House to join me in opposing the Lords amendment and supporting the Government’s amendments in lieu.
Tom Brake
I will make a few short comments in relation to the points that have been made in the debate. It is impossible to win with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). If we do not make any changes to the Bill, we are being dictatorial and steamrolling things through. If we do make changes in response to the debate, we are being spineless. As a Minister, I am always in favour of listening, and if there are ways of improving a Bill, that is what I like to do—and that is what we are doing today.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is the ideal Opposition spokesman? I hope he stays in opposition for a long time.
Tom Brake
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that, and I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will stay on the Opposition Benches for a long time. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support in a roundabout way, and in a lengthier contribution than mine on this measure.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for providing us with the opportunity to debate TV licensing and enforcement today, a debate he initiated many months ago. I hear the unhappiness that he has expressed, but I also heard him comment positively on the fact that there is a clear commitment from any future Government, providing the Bill is passed, to come forward within three months of the publication of the Perry review with an action plan setting out the steps that they will take if they are in favour of decriminalisation.
Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 38.
Clause 1
Health and safety at work: general duty of self-employed persons
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
This too is an important issue, and the hon. Lady might wish to make the case for a debate on it to the Backbench Business Committee. At the end of 2013, the last year for which we have figures, 89.6% of 16 and 17-year-olds were in education or work-based learning, including apprenticeships—an increase on the previous year and the highest rate since consistent records began in 1994. The Government plan to invest £7.2 billion this year to fund education and training places for 16 to 19-year-olds. So a huge amount is happening, but that does not mean the problem has been completely solved, and the hon. Lady may well wish to make the case for a debate.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 705, which stands in my name.
[That this House notes that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair remains, in part, a public servant, but considers that his conduct since leaving Downing Street is in breach of the code of ethics established in 1994 to regulate public life which he himself, whilst in Parliament, enforced so vigorously against others; calls for an urgent debate into the former Prime Minister's commercial and business activities, leading to legislation that mirrors controls over the executive that exists in countries such as the US; further notes that such legislation would control, restrict and regulate a former incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street in the interest of national security and protecting the reputation of the UK among the UK's friends and allies, by limiting his or her ability to work for foreign nations once out of office; and finally believes that it is an essential function of Parliament to do its utmost to safeguard and protect the integrity and reputation of the UK, including the conduct of the holder of the highest executive office in the land.]
It calls for a debate on whether former Prime Ministers should be covered by the Nolan principles on standards in public life. As my right hon. Friend will be well aware, former Presidents of the United States are covered by a very strict code of conduct after they leave office, and introducing similar rules here would protect the reputation of the office of Prime Minister and of our country around the world.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has successfully drawn attention to his early-day motion. There are of course rules that apply in this country to former Prime Ministers and Ministers for two years after leaving office regarding the need to seek approval for business appointments. After that, we rely very much on the good judgment of those former Prime Ministers and Ministers. That is the current situation, and we should look to them all to exercise that good judgment.
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I am advised that Specsavers is currently negotiating contracts with a number of independent opticians to ensure that there is appropriate coverage. I am advised, too, that where it is unable to negotiate a contract locally, the DVLA does not expect individuals to travel excessive distances. Where it is satisfied that a contracted optician or optometrist is not available, the DVLA will approach an independent provider to conduct the vision tests on an ad hoc basis. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents may be able to make use of that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
My constituent Dawn Astle is campaigning for justice for her late father, the former West Bromwich Albion and England footballer, Jeff Astle, who sadly died in 2002 after suffering neurological damage as a result of heading old-style leather footballs. When I recently visited Coalville rugby club, I found it had numerous leaflets advising about the risks and dangers of head injuries, yet in the words of Dr Robert Cantu, a leading neurologist, football is “light years behind” rugby union in appreciating this problem. May we have a debate on what more the football governing bodies can do to address this long-running issue?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend rightly raises an important issue on behalf of the family of Jeff Astle as well as those currently playing the sport. His question is all the more poignant given that we heard this morning the very sad news of the tragic death of the Australian cricketer, Phillip Hughes. I believe that the Football Association published new guidelines in August relating to the problem of head injuries. The FA says, however, that it is aware that the rules around treating head injuries cover only players in the present and the future and cannot cover past injuries. I am sure that a debate would give Members an opportunity to discuss what more could be done—in other sports as well as football. I am sure that this would be a good argument to present to the Backbench Business Committee.
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
May I bring to the attention of the House early-day motion 455, which stands in my name?
That this House believes that the UK’s air passenger duty is acting as a barrier to allowing hardworking families to take holidays abroad, when the majority already have to pay a premium due to school term-time restrictions; and calls on the Government to reduce the financial impact on hardworking families by scrapping the air passenger duty applicable to children.
Currently, all children aged two and over flying from a UK airport pay the same amount of air passenger duty as an adult. That puts a significant amount on the cost of flying for families and the policy is out of line with most taxes, including on clothes and books, where children are exempt. British families face the full whammy of paying full APD on all flights plus a premium for taking their children on holiday out of school time. May we please have a debate on the amount of tax levied on children’s flights in the UK?
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Let me turn to the serious parts of the questions first. The hon. Lady asked about what she called the “absence” of legislation. If we look at the business I have just announced, we see that it includes the Recall of MPs Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill, which is of global importance, the Childcare Payments Bill, which will be of enormous help to many people in this country, and the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which, as with any matter of taxation, is extremely important. That is the business of the House in just the next 10 days, so to say that business is thin is a refrain for some week past; it is not relevant to this week.
The hon. Lady asked when there would be a vote on opting in to certain measures in justice and home affairs. We have, of course, already decided to opt out of 100 measures, which is the largest return of power from Brussels to Britain ever seen in the history of this country. She said that I had announced the business up to 17 November, but she was not listening carefully enough, because I have announced the business up to 11 November. There is more time before we reach 20 November, as simple arithmetic makes it possible to deduce.
The hon. Lady asked about the coalition and when there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss money resolutions and private Members’ Bills. Those are discussed on private Members’ Bills days, and this issue was raised in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. It can hardly be said that the House does not have an opportunity to address these things, but, as she will have gathered, money resolutions have not been agreed in the Government on the European Union (Referendum) Bill or the Affordable Homes Bill. She asks whether that allows other private Members’ Bills to proceed, and the answer to that is yes. That is why I have announced in the business the money resolution relating to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which will be moved on Monday. I am also placing on the Order Paper a motion that will allow that Bill to go into Committee. Other private Members’ Bills are, in the light of this situation, able to proceed.
The hon. Lady asked about votes that took place this week in the House of Lords, and of course the Bill she mentions will come to the Commons, we will be able to consider those amendments and the Government will have the opportunity to ask the House to reverse them if it wishes to do so. I note that yet again she did not ask—the Opposition never seem to—for any debates on, or time to discuss, the economy of this country. We look forward to a few such requests, because since the last business questions the GDP figures have shown our economy to be 3% bigger than it was a year ago and the statistics released yesterday showed the number of workless households in this country now to be at its lowest for at least 18 years—the figure is lower than at any point during the last Labour Government. Although we have our differences in the coalition from time to time, we have brought about that transformation of the economic prospects of this country. I will of course convey to the Chief Whip the hon. Lady’s congratulations on his dog doing so well in the Westminster dog of the year show.
As the hon. Lady asked about the Government record on policies towards women, I have to remind her that, under Labour, female unemployment rose 24%, and under this Government there are more women in work than ever before. When the Government whom she supported left office, 25% of the FTSE 100 boards had no female members. Now there are no FTSE 100 boards that have no female members. A higher proportion of public appointments have gone to women this year than in any year in the previous decade. Half of all honours this year have gone to women, which never happened under the previous Government. There are more women-led businesses than ever before, and there are, after the work that we have done in the Foreign Office over the past four years, more women ambassadors than ever before. Since I am on record all over the world as saying that the great strategic prize of this century is the full economic, social and political empowerment of women everywhere, it is clear that sometimes this is what a feminist looks like, with or without the T-shirt, and I have no hesitation in saying that.
Finally, as I always congratulate the hon. Lady on something—I have found something to congratulate her on every week so far—I congratulate her on being omitted by Maureen Lipman from the roll-call of reasons not to vote Labour any more. Maureen Lipman announced that, for the first time in five decades, she will not be voting Labour. She said:
“The Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade? I can’t, in all seriousness, go into a booth and put my mark on any one of them.”
I will draw Maureen Lipman’s attention to the hon. Lady, as she might be worth a vote.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
On Monday, we had a report on HS2 by Sir David Higgins. As with many such reports, his raised more questions than it gave answers. The blight of this project affects many thousands of people along the proposed route, including many of my constituents. Uncertainty now about the location of the east midlands hub will only serve to spread this blight even wider. May we please have a statement from the Government about when we will know the location of the east midlands hub and the route for phase 2, so that people can get the compensation they need to get on with their lives?
Mr Hague
I will draw my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of Transport Ministers. Clearly, the location of the east midlands hub needs to work for both Derby and Nottingham, and provide the best possible wider connectivity to the region. However, that work is in its early stages, so it is premature to say that there will be a Government statement on it, and unfair to identify any particular sites until the Government are more certain about where that site might go because of the risk of blight to people’s properties. None the less, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and I will draw them to the attention of the Ministers.
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I do not think that I can expand on what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in half an hour in this House. He answered many questions, including from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot add to what he has said, but he did stress the importance that the Government attach to the matter and indeed to the future of steel production overall. He will continue to keep the House up to date, and I am sure that he will be touch with hon. Members whose constituencies are affected.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I feel compelled once again to raise the matter of foreign lecturers working in Italian universities, known collectively as lettori, who have been discriminated against for decades on the basis of nationality. My right hon. Friend will know of this issue from his former role. He will also know that despite various assurances from the Italian Government that this issue will be resolved, nothing has happened. They promised to intervene in July but that did not materialise. May we have a statement from the Government on what further measures they can take to persuade the Italian Government to stop this practice of discrimination, which is in breach of all European treaties.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise this issue. The Government have repeatedly raised their concerns. I did so as Foreign Secretary with Italian Ministers and with the Italian ambassador. Senior officials and Ministers continue to raise it. Our ambassador in Rome is seeking a further meeting with the Italian Education Minister and the head of the universities department to discuss the next steps. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will want to keep my hon. Friend up to date on this, as he has done in the past.
Devolution (Scotland Referendum)
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
I will give way in a moment. Let me get past my third line.
Today’s debate is an opportunity for Members to respond properly to this growing cynicism. I say at the outset, however, that the problem will not be solved by Westminster imposing a solution on the British people.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate, however, that the matter of English votes for English laws is a boil that has festered for far too long, and does he appreciate the frustration of my constituents, who see Scottish MPs voting on matters that affect North West Leicestershire, when, quite rightly, the corresponding legislation has been devolved to Scotland, and I have no say over it?
Sadiq Khan
I will do my best, as did the Leader of the House, to make a rational speech and address that very point later in my speech.
The Scottish referendum was a shining beacon of democracy at its best. Faced with a crucial choice about their future, registration and turnout among the people of Scotland was unprecedented. No one can have failed to be impressed by the millions of people coming out to vote and being so passionate about the future direction of their country. By a clear majority, the Scottish people voted to pool and share resources across the UK, and I would like to pay tribute to the enormous hard work of some involved in the Better Together campaign from across the political spectrum. In the Scottish Parliament, I pay tribute to Johann Lamont for Labour, Ruth Davidson for the Conservatives and Willie Rennie for the Liberal Democrats.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who all played a big role, and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). I also pay tribute to campaigners on the yes campaign for their passion and hard work and to all those who voted.
The referendum sent a clear message, from both yes and no voters, that the status quo is unacceptable—that we cannot keep running the country the way we do—and this groundswell is not restricted to Scotland but has been repeated the length and breadth of the country. The country wants to break the stranglehold of Westminster, and it wants power shifted away from this place on a grand scale. People want to feel they genuinely have a say. They are fed up with feeling powerless and they are frustrated that powerful vested interests are not faced down. They want decisions and power close to where they live, in towns and cities up and down the country. That is why we need to grasp this opportunity and reshape the country in the way the people want, not the way we in Westminster want. Westminster does not always know best—
Mr Davidson
I very much support that, as do, I think, the vast majority of people in the Labour party and many of the other parties that participated in the referendum.
We had a tightly fought and strongly argued debate on the referendum, and we are now all entitled to accept that there was a clear and decisive result. It now appears that no form of devolution will satisfy those who are in favour of separation. We are starting to see not only unhappiness about the result but a rejection of the result. The myth of betrayal is being put forward. We are starting to see the “grievance a day” mentality. That will potentially poison Scottish politics unless those of us who are in favour of settlement move forward in a positive and constructive fashion.
I recognise that, as a result of what has happened in Scotland, there are issues for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We ought to adhere to two principles: first, all MPs are elected equal; and secondly, we must respect the integrity of the Union. We cannot have a situation where Scots are sent out of the room for some debates. As has been said elsewhere, we cannot have Scots MPs being sent out for some things, Welsh MPs being sent out for others, Northern Ireland MPs being sent out for different subjects, and London MPs being sent out for others still. I recognise that England is a nation, although I have to say that it is unfortunate, perhaps, that it must be about the only nation in the world that does not have its own national anthem.
Andrew Bridgen
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with this:
“If it’s wrong and something needs to be corrected then even if in the short term it looks that it might be a disadvantage to our party, long term if you do the right thing it’s good for the party. What’s right for the country is right for our party.”
If the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) accepts that the West Lothian question needs to be addressed, why cannot he?
Mr Davidson
I do think that the West Lothian question should be addressed, but not by sending Scots out of the room.
I very much take the view that the disparity in scale between the different parts of the Union must also be accepted. I want to see a solution to what we can perhaps describe as the English problem, whether that involves an English parliament, regional structures, or city regions. I do not mind any of that if we have had a reasoned debate and discussion. However, it is inappropriate for people to suggest that EVEL should be introduced as a knee-jerk reaction without full consideration, debate and discussion within England itself. We have to remember that the process of Scottish devolution has been very lengthy, thorough, involving and all-embracing: it was not produced on the spur of the moment very much for party advantage. I understand to some extent why some Conservatives are doing this, but I appeal to them not to seek to pursue party advantage on this question at the risk of damaging the future of the Union.
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Many hon. Members will appreciate Barbara Hepworth’s work, as many visitors to the Mander centre will have done over the past 46 years. It is possible to protect such sculptures through statutory listing, and my hon. Friend may seek a debate on the wider issues about protecting our cultural landmarks, but I am sure that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would also be pleased to meet him to discuss what can be done to help his campaign and save this particular sculpture for the future enjoyment of his constituents and many visitors to Wolverhampton.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
While not wishing to annoy the House, I am afraid that I must again raise the issue of nuisance telephone calls. My constituents tell me that despite registering for the telephone preference service they find themselves inundated with unsolicited calls at all hours of the day. May we please have a debate about what more the Government can do to lift this blight from people’s lives that causes so much misery to our constituents?
Mr Hague
There is great concern in the House about this problem—it was raised last week as well—and the DCMS is taking measures to address it. It published its nuisance calls action plan on 30 March and since January 2012 regulators have issued penalties totalling more than £1.9 million to companies for breaching the rules. Further work is under way to see what more can be done to tackle the issue, as set out in the action plan, and I know that DCMS Ministers would be willing to discuss that with my hon. Friend.
Select Committee on Governance of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Many intertwining things have brought us to this point. I would not like to traduce the motivations of anybody who contributes to the debate, but the motivations of those who were on the commission should not be traduced either. It is important that we accept that.
I should like to get back to the terms of the motion. As I said, the process was in line with the kind of process that one would expect for any other senior appointment outside this place. In the recent past, the appointment was at the discretion of the Speaker, who was handed two names by the retiring Clerk. Even if some Members objected to the result of the process, I think it is welcome that the tradition of the Speaker getting to choose between two names handed to him by the predecessor Clerk has been left behind and that the House is trying finally to bring its recruitment processes into the 21st century.
Although I do not want to comment any further on the proceedings of the panel, I understand the concern of some Members at the outcome and I welcome today’s motion. The worries have centred around the fact that despite being eminently qualified as a chief executive, the successful candidate is not an expert on parliamentary procedure. However, the fact is that an expert on parliamentary procedure who has spent their entire working life in our excellent Clerk’s department is unlikely to be able to demonstrate the requirements needed to be an outstanding chief executive. That is why the Hansard Society, through its Puttnam commission in 2005, advocated splitting the Clerk and chief executive roles and why it has advocated governance reforms since.
It is clear that we have a tension at the heart of the role of Clerk and chief executive and considering some of the imminent changes facing the House Administration, I believe that it is evident that that tension is likely to get worse and to do so quite quickly. The restoration and renewal project could mean Members having to decant this building for an entire Parliament or longer. However it is accomplished, it will be complex and extremely demanding, exposing us to huge practical challenges and to great reputational risk. I might add that I firmly believe that it might also be a great opportunity to take a new look at how Parliament operates and communicates with the people it is here to serve.
A programme of digital transformation has already been embarked on, with the twin aims of radically improving Parliament’s ability to work and communicate and achieving a step change in our efficiency. There is the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, which is exploring the potential offered by digital communications to enhance our interaction with our constituents. It often seems to me that our IT equipment actively stands in the way of our doing our jobs effectively when it should be facilitating greater communication in a secure and robust way.
There is the challenge of the looming general election —we all have our own challenges coming up with that.
Ms Eagle
No.
The general election will mean managing the end of the first ever fixed-term Parliament and the first coalition since the second world war against the backdrop of the very volatile times in which we are living. More than 2,000 staff require management and Parliament handles a budget of more than £200 million. I believe that the smooth operation of change management in these vital areas is just as important in the delivery of parliamentary services as the crucial advice we receive from our Clerks in their important interpretation of “Erskine May” and our procedures. In 2007, as the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said, the Tebbit report considered and dismissed the idea of the separation of the role of Clerk and chief executive. However, the report said that Clerks hoping to be appointed chief executive should in future have “senior management experience” and that should mean
“having spent a period outside the Clerk's Department and preferably beyond the confines of Westminster”.
Ms Eagle
No.
That has not happened, but the challenges facing the holder of the Clerk and chief executive’s job have undoubtedly multiplied. It now makes sense, therefore, to revisit the original consideration of the report and whether we should split the role, which is why I welcome the motion before us this evening and urge the House to support it.
Business of the House
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Again, I cannot offer an additional debate next week. The Opposition regularly have time available to them to bring forward these issues. The hon. Lady says that the Prime Minister did not answer the question, but he did point out that far fewer people are in relative poverty now than there were at the time of the last general election, including 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010. Also, very importantly, there are now 50,000 fewer households stuck in the trap of never having worked. This is how we are addressing poverty, and we are doing so a lot more successfully than the previous Labour Government.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Snibston discovery park and museum in my constituency is currently under threat of closure by Leicestershire county council, despite being a popular local attraction that receives five-star reviews from people who have recently visited it. A number of the friends and supporters of Snibston wish to take over the running of this attraction as an independent trust. May we have a debate on what help and support the Government can give to community, voluntary and independent groups seeking to take over the running of council-held assets?
Mr Hague
Although I cannot offer an additional debate at the moment, the Government strongly support this. As my hon. Friend knows, we have introduced a community right to bid to give communities a better chance to buy local assets that they cherish. He will like to know that so far 1,500 assets around the country have been listed as assets of community value. We are providing £19 million-worth of support for communities to help them to utilise this right to bid. While not knowing the local issues regarding this very important facility, I strongly encourage all those involved to look at how the Government’s approach can benefit it.