Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Clive Betts Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I just make some progress?
Nearly all private high residential buildings where such cladding remains are now in line to have remedial work scheduled. Where that is not the case, the Government will work with local authorities to take enforcement action if landlords refuse to deal with the problems themselves. I think the House will agree that they have had enough time. There are no more excuses; they must make those buildings safe, or face the consequences.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has done a lot of work on this issue, and we have highlighted the need for speedy removal of the cladding. It is in the private sector that there are often disputes between the freeholder and the leaseholders, who may be legally responsible but simply do not have the wherewithal to do the work. I am pleased by what the Prime Minister has said, but will he confirm that he will work with local authorities and they will do the work in default, in order to ensure that people in these properties are safe?
The Prime Minister
We will indeed be working—in fact, we are already working—with local authorities to enforce the requirement that they remove the cladding in question. Although I—like, I think, many Members—feel that progress should be faster, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are hard at it to remove that cladding.
If I may, I shall turn now to the second and most important factor that Sir Martin identified. The cladding on Grenfell Tower caused the fire to spread out of control and to behave in ways that nobody had seen before. This unprecedented fire created an unprecedented challenge to the men and women sent to fight it. Since 2017, much has been written from many perspectives about the way in which the London Fire Brigade handled the unfolding disaster, so let me be very clear from the start.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
The past nine years of austerity have seen cuts degrade our fire and rescue services. The reality and the truth is that we have fewer firefighters, fewer fire appliances and, as a result, slower response times. I am not being critical of individual firefighters or their collective response to try to deal with Grenfell. The reality is that if we cut fire services, we live in a more dangerous place. While firefighters selflessly risk their lives to protect others, the Government have not provided them with the resources that they need. Between 2010 and 2016, the Government cut central funding by 28% in real terms, followed by a further cut of 15% by 2020. These cuts have led to the loss of 11,000 firefighter positions—that is 20% of firefighters.
The Prime Minister will know that, as Mayor of London, he was at the forefront of the cuts to the fire service. In the eight years for which he was Mayor of London, the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of £100 million. That led to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire rescue units and three training appliances, and it closed 10 London fire stations.
We all agree that Grenfell must never happen again. It happened because of the way in which building regulations either have not been adhered to or are inadequate, because of an inspection regime that was either non-existent or inadequate and because of a response that was insufficient.
Jeremy Corbyn
I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts).
Mr Betts
My right hon. Friend is right that one of the real problems with the inspection regime is the way that responsibility was taken away from local authority building control officers, who acted independently. Very often developers can now appoint their own friends to sign off the buildings. Is that not something that Dame Judith Hackitt identified as a real problem that needs addressing? We need urgent action now, rather than to wait for legislation in two years’ time.
Jeremy Corbyn
As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend has done excellent work in highlighting all these issues, for which I thank him. That is Parliament at its best, examining what has happened.
I give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin).
Joanna Cherry
No, I am going to make some progress.
When this House reassembles after general election 2019, we must not allow political blame for this avoidable tragedy to be deflected. The second phase of this inquiry, I believe, will be uncomfortable for Conservative Ministers and Conservative councillors who sat on their hands or took actions that let circumstances occur that contributed to this tragedy. I believe that phase 2 will be far more uncomfortable for them than phase 1 has been for the fire service—and that is as it should be.
I welcome the undertaking from the Prime Minister to implement all the recommendations for central Government, but I reiterate the question that other hon. Members have asked: will he commit to the requisite funding to implement those recommendations? In the past, many post-death inquiries have made very important recommendations, but there is not always national oversight of those recommendations. There is not a national body keeping track of whether they have been implemented, and the reality is that important recommendations often fall by the wayside.
Mr Betts
The hon. and learned Lady is making a very important point. Does she think that as soon as the Government, whichever Government it is, have had a chance to consider the recommendations in detail, they should publish a list of those recommendations, what they are going to do to implement them, how much that will cost, and the timeframe in which they will be delivered?
Joanna Cherry
That is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Others have mentioned Lakanal House. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out that the tragedy at Grenfell was not the first time that compartmentation had failed. The Lakanal House fire, which resulted in the deaths of six people, with 15 residents and a firefighter injured, was the subject of a coroner’s inquest. As the hon. Gentleman said, the coroner sent a rule 43 letter to the then Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, on 28 March 2013, recommending that the Westminster Government should
“publish consolidated national guidance in relation to the ‘stay put’ principle and its interaction with the ‘get out and stay out’ policy, including how such guidance is disseminated to residents.”
Ministers promised to review that guidance with the Local Government Association. However, in the four years after the coroner’s letter, no guidance was produced. So the lessons that should have been learned from the Lakanal House fire, and that might have prevented at least the scale of this avoidable tragedy, were not learned. It is vital that this House is empowered to make sure that the recommendations of phase 2 are implemented promptly, because important recommendations have not been implemented promptly in the past.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), perhaps making his last speech in this House. I thank him for his friendship over the years and his unswerving commitment to fire safety. He will certainly be remembered for that. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for her outstanding work on behalf of her constituents. This disaster happened shortly after she had been elected, and I do not think that anyone in this country could have had better representation through the difficulties that the community faced and the work that she has done on their behalf.
I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick for his recommendations in the inquiry. Of course, they need to be implemented and the funding needs to be made available. To pick out certain salient points, it is very clear that the cladding on that building did not meet fire or building regulations. It was there illegally. Eventually, the inquiry will look at how it came to be in that situation, but at some point someone will have to be held accountable because if that material had not been on that building, the disaster would not have happened. That is absolutely key.
The second issue, a concern to which Sir Martin draws attention in paragraph 33.6, is the delay in getting action in removing this cladding from other buildings. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that he has concerns about that. The Government were too late in providing funding for social housing and in providing money for the private sector. They now have to act to make sure that disputes between freeholders and leaseholders in the private sector do not lead to further delays and to support local authorities in taking enforcement action.
What can the Government do? We referred to this in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee the other day: they should act quickly to deal with the conflicts of interest in testing, where producers go round from one testing organisation to another to find one that will approve their product with no public transparency about the products that have failed various tests. That must be rectified quickly.
As I said to the Secretary of State the other day, the process whereby developers in high-risk buildings can appoint their friends to be the building inspectors who sign off the work is not acceptable. It cannot be allowed to continue. I have referenced a block of student accommodation in Sheffield evacuated the other day because the building inspector had not even been on site to give approval to the building and sign it off. That, again, needs to be stopped here and now.
Finally, reference has been made to non-ACM cladding. There are materials on half a million properties—half a million flats and apartments—in this country now that would not be allowed and approved on a new building but that are thought acceptable, and people have to stay in those homes and live in them at night. That cannot be right either; that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency as well.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the contributions they have made today to what I think all would agree has been a deeply moving and important debate. Like the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), many were not able to speak at the length they would have wished today. I hope that, whatever the outcome of the forthcoming election, the next Parliament will hold a fuller debate at the earliest opportunity.
The Grenfell Tower fire was, as we have heard, an unimaginable tragedy. Today’s publication of the phase 1 report from the inquiry is an important moment, for the bereaved, for survivors, for the community in North Kensington and for the whole country. I know—and we have heard this expressed many times this afternoon—that no report can truly capture the heartache, sorrow, anger and grief that many people rightly feel. Having met survivors and the bereaved, some of whom are here today, I, like others who have spoken, have been truly humbled by their dignity and resolve. The greatest respect we can show them is to guide the path to the answers they seek and to the accountability and justice they are fighting for; to take responsibility where it is due; and to take action of a scale and at a pace that is commensurate with the tragedy that prompted it.
Across the House, there was thanks to Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the inquiry team for a report of great depth and seriousness, and of candour and clarity, including on issues of crucial concern, exemplified by his statement that the tower did not meet building regulations. He could have reserved that statement for the next phase of his report, but he and the inquiry chose to make it now. I hope that statement gives reassurance that the second phase of his report, which, as a number of hon. Members have said, sets these events into a much broader context, is likely to be equally candid and clear. As the Prime Minister said in his opening remarks, the Government will accept all of the findings of the report, and accept them in full. We want to ensure that the recommendations are implemented without delay. We will work with our partners, including fire and rescue services across the country, to deliver them. In answer to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and the Leader of the Opposition, let me say that of course we will fund any actions that are required in order to do so. We will bring forward legislation as soon as possible, including ahead of the building safety Bill, if that would mean that any of Sir Martin’s recommendations can be implemented sooner than they would otherwise be.
Like the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many other Members including, to single out just two, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who are both ex-firefighters, I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of those who responded to the scene. They ran into danger with one ambition alone, which was to save lives, and they deserve our gratitude and respect.
Sir Martin has raised a number of concerns, including about preparation and planning, training, the basic information that was missing, serious deficiencies in command and control, and problems dealing with 999 calls. Lessons must be learned. My right hon Friend the Home Secretary will take up the matter immediately.
Most grievous of all was the failure to evacuate the tower once the fire was out of control—the failure to override the “stay put” advice. I want to be clear, as this has been raised a number of times this afternoon: Sir Martin makes it clear in his report that effective compartmentation is likely to remain at the heart of fire safety strategy and will probably continue to provide a safe basis for responding to the vast majority of fires in high-rise buildings. It will be necessary, though, as a number of Members have said, for building owners and fire and rescue services to provide a greater range of responses, including full or partial evacuation; for firefighters and those leading them to be prepared and trained for an alternative, should it be required; and for that training and guidance to be provided, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, so that they can exercise their discretion in that most difficult and challenging of moments. With the National Fire Chiefs Council and others, we will review the “stay put” advice, to ensure that lessons are finally learned.
Mr Betts
One thing that probably has not been mentioned so far is that yes, there need to be adequate responses from firefighters, but fire brigades and authorities also need to hold information about precisely what materials are on the buildings in which they are going to fight the fire.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and, as it is one of Sir Martin’s recommendations, that will be one of the items we will take forward and legislate for at the earliest possibility.
Preparations for Leaving the European Union
Clive Betts Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. Hampshire LRF attended a meeting of the EU Exit Operations Committee last week, and I was incredibly impressed with the work that it is doing. We will continue to work closely with it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
If this House passes the Government’s withdrawal Bill with amendments, will the Government take those amendments back to the EU and seek its agreement to them, or in that situation will they simply try to pursue a no-deal Brexit?
Michael Gove
I think the EU has been very clear that we need to ratify the treaty as agreed. To be fair to the other 27 EU member states, they have laboured long and hard to come to an agreement. If this House were now to say that it did not like the agreement, I think that their patience would be sorely tested.
Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer
Clive Betts Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I welcome the hon. Lady to the House and congratulate her on her victory. In the run up to that victory, I had the opportunity to visit her beautiful constituency and talk to farmers, and one of the things that I was able to reassure them of was that vet medicines are part of the category 1 set of goods that are absolutely prioritised for entry into this country because, of course, we want to make sure that we can deal effectively with any threats to animal health.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, I went with a parliamentary delegation to visit the port of Rotterdam. That port is trying to recruit more than 100 vets to do checks on animals, food and other related products. We were also shown where they are going to build major lorry parks to deal with the knock-on effects of those checks, and they confirmed that that will result in delays in fresh products getting across to the United Kingdom. If there will be delays in fresh products leaving the port of Rotterdam, how can the Minister say that that will not result in a shortage of those fresh products in UK shops?
Michael Gove
It is important to state that it would actually be sanitary and phytosanitary checks undertaken in the UK that would delay those products, and we are not undertaking SPS checks in the UK because of our continuity approach.
UK Shared Prosperity Fund
Clive Betts Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry
Show me the money.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has repeatedly referred to “EU money”. I hope he will acknowledge that it is not the EU’s money but British taxpayers’ money and that he will reflect on the fact that, in 2018, we paid £13.2 billion into the EU and they returned £4.2 billion to this country.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a huge privilege to stand in the House today. We have a special word in the Cornish language: hireth. There really is no direct translation into English, but it is about a feeling that comes from being Cornish. It derives from our inspirational natural environment and from our history and culture.
As someone whose family has lived and worked in my constituency for generations, it has been a huge privilege to represent my home town. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, just before you leave the Chamber, let me say that you were in the Chair when I made my maiden speech. As the general election is just around the corner, this may well be my last speech in this House, and it will be a speech standing up for the people of Cornwall who sent me here. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for standing and listening to me say that.
There is no doubt in my mind that the funding that Cornwall has received via the European funds has been absolutely essential. Despite the many natural wonders of Cornwall, and the hugely talented, creative and resourceful people, the fact remains that we are still the poorest region in England. There is no doubt that a huge amount of progress is being made. In no small part, that is down to the funding that we have received via the European Union. Let me explain why.
Just before the summer recess, colleagues from across the House, including my Cornish colleagues and I, supported by 14 first tier local authorities, launched a report called “Britain’s Leading Edge”, which demonstrates beyond doubt that the English regions that do not have a major city have been historically underfunded and that there is a bias in the system of the allocation of public money towards the English regions that do have cities. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to the report and that we have seen some real progress in some of the funding formulae used to allocate funding, particularly in the NHS and the recent moves on the national funding formula for education. However, the models that the Treasury uses in the allocation of funds for transport and economic development are systematically biased against regional peripheral maritime regions such as Cornwall.
This is where the European funding that Cornwall has received comes in. It has enabled us to put that money on the table in our negotiations with the Treasury when we are securing vital investment for our infrastructure, such as roads, rail, superfast broadband and education. It is vital for future progress that anyone and everyone who represents Cornwall and the regions of the UK that do not have major cities ensures that there is dedicated funding to close those gaps and to make the progress we want.
Cornwall, like all these regions, has huge potential and capabilities that need to be unleashed. We want to play our full part in our nation. We do not want to be the poorest region. We certainly have the talent and the capability to deliver, particularly on some of the key challenges and opportunities our country faces. I think we can all agree that there is no greater challenge than facing up to climate change and environmental degradation, and our regions have the solutions; we produce the nation’s food as well as vast sources of renewable energy. We have talented people, great businesses and wonderful universities. With dedicated funding, we are more than able to meet the challenge of closing the gap. I know that the Government want to ensure that no one and no region in our country is left behind, and dedicated replacement funding for the EU funding will enable us to ensure that.
Mr Betts
I wish the hon. Lady all the best for the future, as she has indicated that she will not be in this place after the election.
It is important that areas such as Cornwall get the continuation of the funding they have had in the past when we are outside the EU. But there are other areas such as South Yorkshire, which are not currently objective 1 areas but which would get objective 1 funding in the future if we were still in the EU. It is important that that is recognised in any future settlement, so that areas such as South Yorkshire get the proper funding as well.
Sarah Newton
Let me put this beyond doubt; I am just being respectful of the fact that no one has a right to a seat on these Benches. If we have a general election, I do not make any assumption about whether I will be returned to this place, but I absolutely plan and hope that the general election does send me back to this place. Far too many people in this House are complacent and see themselves automatically being re-elected. In a forthcoming general election, I know that I will have to go out and earn my right to represent my constituents here. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to complete my speech, which I am very happy to do.
I would like Ministers to make an unequivocal commitment in our manifesto for the forthcoming general election that Cornwall will receive, pound for pound, what it would have received had we stayed in the European Union, so that we can unleash the huge potential that we can deliver to our great nation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Betts Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) for the dignified way in which they conducted the Conservative party leadership election. He has been an advocate for the Government doing more on mental health during his time in this House, and he has championed the need for us to do more on mental health. I want to continue to ensure that we do indeed take that forward. We have set the record in putting that record funding into mental health and in having those essential reviews—Stevenson/Farmer and Sir Simon Wessely’s review. We now need to ensure that we implement the proposals and that we take this forward. If we do so, we will make a significant improvement in the lives of those people with mental health problems.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I commend the individual to whom the hon. Gentleman referred for the work that he has been doing. I am not aware of the organisation that the hon. Gentleman referred to, of which the consultant that he mentioned is a member, but I do want a relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union in the future that enables our scientists and academics to continue to work with those in the EU, and around the rest of the world, to do the pioneering work that—as the hon. Gentleman said, speaking from his own experience—is changing people’s lives for the better.
Exiting the European Union
Clive Betts Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right. I refer again to the fact that our party’s manifesto two years ago said that our aim was to negotiate a new deep and special partnership with the European Union. That sits alongside our commitment to leaving the European Union in line with the verdict in the referendum. The negotiations that have concluded tonight enable us to get on with those twin objectives, which is what I believe the majority of British people now wish us to do.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I refer the Minister to a sentence in his statement, when he said:
“The first provides confirmation that the EU cannot try to trap the UK in the backstop indefinitely”.
There are two interesting words there. First, the word “confirmation” is a simple affirmation that there is not any change—it is confirmation, so there is no change. Secondly, the word “trap” implies unreasonable and deliberate action by the EU, so is the Minister saying that if the EU behaves reasonably and there is simply a genuine failure between the UK and the EU to agree on a way forward, the UK could remain in the backstop indefinitely?
Mr Lidington
First, of course, all parties agree that the backstop, were it ever to be used, is temporary. Indeed, article 50 is not a legal basis for any sort of permanent relationship between the European Union and a third country of any kind. On the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made, the language that I used in the statement reflected the concerns that have been expressed often inside and outside this House that there would be an effort by some countries within the European Union to keep us in the backstop because, such critics argued, they would see economic advantage or leverage in so doing. What the joint instrument makes very clear is that any such action would be a breach of the EU’s formal international legal obligations.
Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information
Clive Betts Excerpts(7 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is far more of an expert than I am on the matter. He has made an interesting observation that might be worth pursuing further. He may well have a very strong point there.
To return to my quest that is now nine years on. In fact, it is probably more than nine years, because I know that my predecessors, Julian Huppert and David Howarth, pursued the matter. I fear it might go back as far as Anne Campbell’s time. As I have said, I made a pledge to Simon Lebus that we would try to resolve the issue before his retirement. Sadly, it has not been achieved. I fear it might have to wait for a Labour Government, which I am sure will be along soon.
Freedom of information is sometimes considered a slightly nerdy issue—no apologies to colleagues present—but it is an incredibly important mechanism to secure proper accountability and democratic oversight. It is disappointing that we have not yet had a proper Government response to the Information Commissioner’s report, although, to be fair to the Minister, she has said that they are considering it carefully and will respond in due course, which of course is wonderful civil service speak. We will await events. We cannot let private companies get away with always doing their dealings out of the public eye when their decisions have a serious impact on the lives of all our constituents. We need the tools to provide the checks and balances. Too often it seems to be a carry-on behind closed doors and it cannot continue.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We will now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. The first is the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who will be pleased to know that it is not the Chair’s responsibility to sing him happy birthday.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard)—I wish him the best on his special day, and many more of them to come.
The debate, obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), follows on from his work on his private Member’s Bill, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, as well as from work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It also follows the report from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has been referred to. This is clearly not a case of the Information Commissioner making a power grab, or of mission creep. The report is based on evidence showing where the current situation is not working, or where the ICO does not have sufficient power to challenge bodies that undertake work on behalf of public authorities, such that the balance needs to be redressed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith for his persistence on the matter, but I cannot help thinking that at some point the change he proposes will become inevitable.
I, too, received a briefing from the National Housing Federation, and I gave it a read. I confess that my response was similar to that of my hon. Friends: “Is that it?” The reasons given for not adopting the proposals seemed pretty thin. I wondered why such bodies might not want the change. Perhaps it is because of concern about a regulatory workload and burden. However, it is clear to me that, where freedom of information operates, there is a possibility of change in the culture of the organisations operating under its auspices. They realise that they can no longer hold on tightly to information or act in a secretive manner, and so they become more open to the people whom they exist to serve. Their manner of doing business, internally and externally, therefore becomes more open, and perhaps they become better and more efficient organisations as a result. That culture change should be embraced and welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith discussed occasions when freedom of information requests were denied, such as requests regarding the number of attacks at HM Prison Birmingham, and the number of prison staff there—figures that G4S declined to provide. G4S also declined to provide information on the number of complaints from the public against court security officers. My hon. Friend discussed television licences and Virgin Care providing NHS services—something that has recently happened in my area, where increasingly community health services are delivered by private sector contractors. That has been a deliberate policy of the Government, and we have a philosophical difference about that privatisation. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, the law must be able to keep up with changes in the way society is structured.
I noted something that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said about public money being used for public services. That is at the core of the issue, and there cannot be any real argument about it. Where public money is being used to provide a public service, there should be no hiding place, and neither should there be any desire to hide from the necessary and, I think, welcome scrutiny that freedom of information provides.
Under the current Conservative Government there has been a clear trend in favour of large outsourcing companies, which tend to operate with little accountability or public responsibility. Carillion, Interserve, Capita and G4S are names that we regularly see. The reach of those companies is huge. I think I am correct in saying that Interserve had construction contracts to build motorway junctions, and it was running the probation service. Those companies’ reach goes right across society. The Opposition believe that the lack of responsibility and openness can amplify the possibility of problems. As the companies in question have less responsibility to act openly, they tend to clam up—for want of a better expression—hunker down and try to conceal any problems. We are clear that public services need to be transparent and accountable to the people who use them, regardless of whether they are delivered by the public sector or by private companies. We were clear about that in 2017, when our manifesto stated:
“We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to private companies that run public services”.
That will also be in our next general election manifesto, whenever it is required. We shall also extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover housing associations and other social landlords, as well as tenant management organisations, and we will consider extending it to cover contractor-held information.
The housing point is important because of the dreadful example discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith: the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We shall never know whether openness might have prevented the tragedy. The public inquiry under way at the moment will consider those issues. We know, however, that residents were battling for several years beforehand to try to find information that was consistently denied to them—I will say no more, because the matter is currently under consideration by the inquiry.
The Freedom of Information Act does not generally apply to information held by contractors about the public service they provide to local and central Government—for example for social care, health, public transport, school inspections and privately run prisons—and that is because of a loophole in the system. Section 3(2) of the Act states that information held “by the public authority” also includes information
“held by another person on behalf of an authority”.
The information that a contractor holds on behalf of a public authority is therefore within the scope of a freedom of information request, even if the authority never physically holds that information as its own hard copy or electronic files. However, that does not include all information that may be held by the contractor in connection with the performance or proposed performance of a contract.
The kind of information that has been withheld from the public includes some examples that have already been mentioned, such as the cost of TV licence prosecutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith reminded us, not even the BBC is allowed to receive that information, even though it always takes a battering from the general public for prosecutions undertaken by Capita.
The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill contains provisions to ensure that all information about the provision of public service under contract could be obtained via an FOI request to the relevant authority. It seeks to provide legal certainty on the position of contractors and subcontractors by requiring all contracts between a public authority and a contractor to be deemed to include a provision that all information held by the contractor or sub-contractor in connection with the performance, or proposed performance, of a contract is held on behalf of the public authority and therefore lies within the scope of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith stated at the time:
“The general public has a right to know as much about Carillion or Serco when they are given public contracts or providing public services as we do about public authorities doing the same work. My Bill would bring freedom of information into line with the way public services are now being delivered in 2018”.
The report by the Information Commissioner’s Office states:
“In the modern age, public services are delivered in many ways by many organisations”—
the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—
“yet not all of these organisations are subject to access to information laws. Maintaining accountable and transparent services is a challenge because the current regime does not always extend beyond public authorities and, when it does, it is complicated. The laws are no longer fit for purpose.”
The ICO recommended that private contractors should be FOI-able where that is in the public interest,
“whether because of the scale, duration or public importance of the contracts”.
The report continues:
“Without information to understand how public services are performing, how levels of service compare and how problems are tackled, the public will be left in the dark about the operation of public services. Access to information legislation is essential to democratic accountability and helps to create what we all want to see—better public services”.
In the case of Carillion, that lack of transparency prevented small businesses from making informed decisions as to whether to enter into contracts with it, at a time when it was financially risky to do so.
A recent TUC report recommended a number of steps to improve transparency in outsourcing. Those included, among other things, the creation of a so-called Domesday Book for all contracts. A new public body would be set up to operate at arm’s length from central Government, and it would have statutory powers to require both commissioners and contractors from across the public sector to supply it with data. It should maintain a Domesday Book for all contracts, including performance on the outsourcing of services. At the moment there is no centralised place to find a list of contracts for a specific company. I tried to find a list of contracts for Capita, but that information seemed to be fractured and diffuse across Government.
Tenants and the public have the right to information about councils under the Freedom of Information Act, but not about housing associations, which provide the same essential housing services and receive significant public investment. In my area almost all public housing is provided by three or four housing associations, and they were stock transfers previously owned by Chester City Council. The previous Labour Government and the Conservative-led coalition proposed that the legislation should cover housing associations, but that has not yet been achieved. Obtaining information from contractors, including on fire safety, can prevent a problem, and my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to correct that serious omission by making housing associations public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
Public authorities are suffering from the difficulties of austerity and cuts, and they will find it onerous to provide responses to freedom of information requests. However, the 2000 Act does contain provisions to prevent mischievous or repetitive requests from the same residents. Perhaps that has given public contractors a sense that they do not want to take on the same burdens, but if they are happy to take on public contracts they should surely be happy to take on the responsibilities of being a public contractor.
We have seen in the Government’s approach to public contracting what I believe to be a form of reverse redistribution that takes large amounts of public money and puts it into the pockets of big public contractors. From there it goes into the pockets, bank accounts, or indeed—dare I perhaps inject an unwelcome political element into the debate?—the offshore bank accounts, that belong to some of the owners of those public bodies.
Listening to the contributions from my hon. Friends, it seems that when public money is being spent on delivering public services, there can be no reason why the same public scrutiny should not be applied. It is a matter of time. Let us hope that it is only a matter of minutes, while the Minister responds, but if it does take longer to introduce such a measure, that will be achieved when the next Labour Government take office.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. I hope that she will allow a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to wind up the debate.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Clive Betts Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me. I think the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) should beware that, while perhaps not wishing to do so, he may sometimes be talking up the possibility of panic and spreading gloom and despondency unnecessarily. I have a short time available to me, but I will take less than the six minutes if I possibly can, because my points are few and simple.
In the more than 21 years since I have been in the House, I have to say that this is the first time I have experienced tabling an amendment and then winning the support of a Prime Minister for it. In her opening remarks, the Prime Minister did of course mention amendment (n). I rise to support the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—elected, of course, by the whole House—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), as well as many others on both sides of the House.
I will oppose the amendments that seek to delay the article 50 process and those that might rule out some of the options. I do so without any suggestion that these are necessarily deliberately intended to damage the process of Brexit, but I think they carry considerable dangers in them. Those who seek to delay the process risk removing the pressure point or decision point—the moment of decision—that is bringing greater focus to the negotiations at this point. It has been palpable in the last couple of weeks that we have seen more evidence of flexibility from the EU side in the negotiations and a greater willingness to look at how it might assist the United Kingdom to come to an arrangement with which we can agree that can take us out of the European Union in an orderly and managed way. There is a real danger in that.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
What legally binding change to the arrangements does the hon. Gentleman now feel the EU will sign up to that it would not have signed up to a few weeks ago?
Sir Graham Brady
I will come on to those matters. I have very little time, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is my intention in speaking in this debate.
First, however, I wish to turn to the amendments that deal with procedure. I entirely accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Father of the House said: it is the right of this House to change procedure. However, I would make a slightly different point, which is that I think it is unwise to change procedure without forethought. It is unwise to change procedure on the hoof or to do it for a particular purpose.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) are fantastic members of my Select Committee—as are all the members. The deal has been rejected; all my amendment says is that, if we get to 26 February and we still have agreed not agreed a deal just 31 days before we are due to leave the European Union, we need at that point to have in place a mechanism to give us more time. That is simply what my amendment would do. It does not propose that we extend article 50 today and it does not come to a conclusion about the final deal, but it does say that we need time to get this right, to secure a deal so that we do not crash out without a deal. For business and, as other Members have said, for policing and security, we must avoid the chaos that we all know will occur if we crash out without a deal. I believe that the Prime Minister knows that, too. The amendment would give her and the Government the space to get the right deal.
The most obvious way to ensure that we do not leave without a deal is to take no deal on 29 March off the table. The way to do that is to put in its place this mechanism to extend article 50 if we get to 26 February without having secured a deal. It will give us the time we desperately need to get this right. It is exactly the opposite of the dangerous tactic of running down the clock and putting pressure on Members to agree a deal that many of us think and believe very strongly is a bad deal for our country.
Rachel Reeves
I will not give way, because of the time, if that is okay.
My amendment is very simple. It calls on the Government to extend article 50 in the event that we do not have a deal by 26 February. The Prime Minister could still come back to the House on 13 or 14 February and if she can get her deal through Parliament, the amendment will become irrelevant. The Prime Minister still has another month to secure agreement, but the amendment would give us further time if that is necessary. My amendment does not specify an amount of time for which we should extend article 50. It would be up to the Government to agree that with our counterparts in the European Union.
My amendment differs from amendment (b) tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. My right hon. Friend, rightly, is trying to secure through legislation an extension to article 50 if needed, because so many of us have lost trust and lost faith in this Government. They have let us down on too many occasions. My amendment does not seek to go as far, although I very much support her amendment and will be voting for it this evening.
There are many alternatives, so let us explore them with the time that we have left. Let us try to find consensus and compromise. Let us not box ourselves in, get this wrong and have to live with the consequences either of a bad deal or of crashing out without a deal. We are all under conflicting pressures. We have duties to our constituents and obligations to our parties, and we must also listen to our consciences. I believe that, on such issues, we must put those interests aside and act in the national interest. We must rise to that challenge when we vote this evening.
My message to right hon. and hon. Members about the merits of my amendment, and why I hope they will support it, is straightforward. If they voted to leave and want to see Brexit resolved but are worried about the danger of a no-deal Brexit, it would remove that risk. If they are pushing for a Norway-plus solution, it would keep open that possibility. If they are looking to protect environmental standards, consumer and workers’ rights, the customs union and a strong single market deal, it would allow them to continue making that argument and win it. If they want a people’s vote, but accept that the immediate priority must be to take no deal off the table, it is a key part of that process.
With the countdown clock ticking down by the day, we must all work together and agree a way forward by joining forces to end any prospect of a no-deal Brexit. We must have time to come up with a workable solution. We must not let down our country and crash out of the European Union without a deal, so I urge hon. Members to support my amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Betts Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
This is an important step that the Government have taken. It was advocated by individual Members and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I believe it will indeed have a very positive economic effect on Wales, on the south-west and on constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman quoted £84 million. That was actually for a pilot, which is about keeping more children at home with their families safely. We announced an extra £410 million overall at the Budget for social care, which includes children, and spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by more than £1.5 billion since 2010. We are also taking a number of other steps, such as the work we are doing to increase the number of children’s social workers, the appointment of a chief social worker for children, introducing Frontline and Step Up, and getting quality candidates into social care careers. Those are important steps. The hon. Gentleman talks about money; actually, it is about ensuring that the service that is provided is the right one. That is why we do it across the board, and that is why we are looking at those issues around social workers.
House of Commons Financial Plan and Draft Estimates
Clive Betts Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend, who has been one of the key people seeking to drive this forward, in his role as a Whip and given his responsibility for Opposition accommodation. He is fully aware of the problems there have been throughout the Palace. The new fire doors are absolutely hideous, but they are essential. I am sure that when we get around to restoration and renewal we will have a version of them that performs the same function, but is more in keeping with the building. Finally, we have allocated £3.3 million of the administration budget to the restoration and renewal customer and client team, which builds the occupation for R and R when it comes online.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which are important to many hon. Members, are funded out of the resource aspect of the administration estimate, as is the History of Parliament Trust. We have tried to be as tough with each of those bodies as possible, to ensure that we are getting good value for money. The only comment I would make about the IPU and the CPA is that in many other Parliaments there is a foreign affairs department with a room to welcome guests from other Parliaments. It keeps a record of who has visited and where MPs have gone on visits. That is available to their foreign office. There is a kind of inventory of all the work that is being done on foreign affairs visits. That does not happen here.
We have a multiplicity of different Committees and all-party parliamentary groups, and all the rest of it. For example, I went to Colombia in September, courtesy of ABColombia. It would have been interesting to have seen which other Members had visited there over the last five years and good to have exchanged information with them before going. Keeping such records is not something that we do, but it is one of the things that we should look at for the future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Other Parliaments often have friendship groups, as they call them, which are serviced by staff from their Parliament, so there is a continuity to the visits and a base in the Parliament where Members can be serviced, and information collected and retained. That simply does not happen in this country.
Chris Bryant
That is absolutely right. When—if—Brexit happens, it will be all the more important, in relation to other European countries, that Members of this House and the House of Lords will be seen as diplomats or ambassadors on behalf of Parliament. We need to garner the information, ideas and contacts that come through that in the national interest. I worry that we do not do that very well at the moment.
The capital elements of the administration estimate are quite significant. We are talking about £236.8 million. Some of the figures in the report that we have published are slightly different from the figures that we are talking about now, because this is an iterative process. In a sense, the reason for having this debate was to be able to inform those decisions as they go forward to the commission. The two largest elements of this relate to the major ongoing building projects. Of that, £117.4 million relates to the Strategic Estates projects. I think everybody on the Committee would say that we worry about the Strategic Estates. It is not just that the Elizabeth Tower started off at one price and ended up at a completely different price—incidentally, it ended up being a rather different project. With the stone courtyard project, the money we were allocating for all five courtyards has been taken up on one. I am sure that both the Labour party and Conservative party would have moaned about this, but we also decided to close the cloister—one of the most beautiful parts of the Palace—and move all the staff out more than 18 months ago, yet work has still not started on it, even though it desperately needs work.
Chris Bryant
Yes; I never want to have the debate on whether we should put 3p or 5p on the price of a cup of tea ever again.
Chris Bryant
I am led by the Committee. It is a serious point that we sometimes obsess about small amounts of money, but, for example, it looks as if the fire safety budget will have gone from £90 million to £160 million, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask who made that decision and at what point a decision was made by a Committee of the House or by the accounting officer. If we cannot match responsibility and accountability, there is a real danger that financial mistakes will be made and significant amounts of money will go in the wrong direction.
I have already made the point, but I want to labour it, that we are too bound by Government pay scales. That has made it difficult to pay the right price to get the job done in one of the most complicated and difficult buildings and in the context of the most complicated and difficult political decision-making processes. Many staff who work here are admirable—they dedicate themselves to their task as much as any Member of Parliament and work many hours beyond what they are required to do—but, all too often, we end up bringing in experts on consultancy rates and paying more than we need to simply because we are trying to meet the Treasury’s rules. That is a mistake.
I worry that the building swamps the work financially. We are talking about spending dramatic amounts of money on the building, but what is really important here is the scrutiny work that we do, the public coming to understand how we do our democratic business and the engagement with the public. There are major projects that should be slanted much more towards the public.
A classic instance is that, of late, people have regularly queued for an hour or two hours—often standing in the pouring rain—to get into the building to watch democracy in action. We simply have to do better on such projects. I have heard lots of different explanations. Sometimes I am told that it is because one of the security arches is not working, or that people are working to rule because they are fed up with decisions that have been made elsewhere in the Palace—who knows? All I know is that the public feel they are getting a pretty rum deal. They are often late for meetings that they are coming to in Parliament. This should be an open place, not one that is almost impossible to get into.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As always, Mr Howarth, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I came to Westminster Hall today hoping to be presented with a long-service award; I think that I have been on the Finance Committee since the 2005 Parliament. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is not here today, has been an assiduous member of that Committee and I think that he has been on it, too, for most of that time. Collectively, we have quite a good memory as to how things used to happen, and I will come back to that in a minute.
It is absolutely right that we should have this debate. As said by the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), there has been a gap in having a debate to which all Members can contribute. Next year, we can hopefully go back to having the debate on the Floor of the House, with an amendable motion, hopefully to get more interest from colleagues. That is where we set off and it would be helpful again in the future. The problems around renovation and restoration, including the decision making on it and the complexity that programme has introduced to the budget process, have somewhat handicapped us this year, but I hope we can get back to that arrangement in the future.
I also echo what the Chair of the Committee said when he asked why we need two estimates. When Members estimates dealt with all Members’ expenditure—their expenses, as they are often referred to—one could perhaps understand why there was a need for two estimates. Now, however, that work is carried out by IPSA and the Members estimate is such a small amount that it needs to be absorbed, so that we can get away from the need for two separate sets of accounts.
The Chair has also gone through some of the issues that the Committee has been dealing with, but thinking back to when I joined the Committee in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, what is remarkable now is that we actually have a budget. Believe it or not, we did not have one then. If I said that the finances of the House were run worse than those of the most inefficient district council, I would be exaggerating—I would say the most inefficient town council. It was that bad.
Money got spent, nobody properly accounted for it and there was no proper monitoring. What we have now is a budget agreed each year, which is clear. We monitor against the budget; we have a forward plan; we have a framework for the budget, including criteria in which we lay down what is acceptable in terms of increases for future years, based on inflation, plus any exemptions that are brought forward, such as the Brexit Committee, increased scrutiny or security; and we have an efficiency programme as well.
There have also been efforts to raise extra income, which have been successful in many respects, through catering. We have also tried to bear down on costs. I think that we will have the lowest ever subsidy for catering this year and that is entirely reasonable. We put some subsidy in, because the catering by and large is used by the staff who work in this place, and any reasonable and responsible employer would provide that degree of subsidy for people who do not have a choice about where they eat, particularly at lunchtime.
We should recognise that all those things are a great improvement. By and large, I am pretty comfortable that we are in a good place with the revenue budget. There will be arguments, challenges and disagreements about particular amounts of money, the exemptions to expenditure control and whether efficiencies are going quickly enough, and it is absolutely right that we bear down and put extra pressure on those issues. By and large, however, I think we are in a reasonable place, and can justifiably say, and be content with the fact, that the budget is well managed and scrutinised.
On the capital programme, the situation is not quite as rosy. We can go through a number of the examples that have been highlighted. All the time, we have the challenge of getting to grips with exactly what is going on with some major projects. Hopefully, we now have systems in place that are learning lessons from past mistakes, but we can go around and see the evidence, can’t we? At some stage, there is a story to be told about the Portcullis House roof. I have always said that if someone wanted a page in The Mail on Sunday on that roof, they would probably get at least two pages and a colour supplement to match. It is not right yet, is it? It will be even more interesting when we come to replace it. How will it be replaced? It needs replacing at some point. That fundamental issue was not thought of when the roof was designed and constructed. No one here now is to blame, but there are clearly lessons to be learned.
On the Elizabeth Tower, hopefully lessons are being learned. Ultimately, the work probably needed to be done. It is probably the right project, and what is being done now is value for money, but how we got here is not a good example. We have the fire safety work. Again, it needed to be done, but how we got to the sum is not a good example of financial control. There are the problems with the stonework, and the contracts that have now been suspended, following all the difficulties that have been experienced. Then there is the contract for the sprinkler systems that went with the fire safety. There, again, is a story about how a project was designed and controlled. It does not make happy reading. There are lessons to be learned.
On the other side, we simply must accept that there will always be difficulties and challenges when dealing with this type of building. The very fact that every time we set off on a project it is almost certainly a one-off—it will not have been done for many years, and hundreds in some cases—and we will find things we did not expect. The unexpected will always happen. We are in a listed historic building with lots of construction workers around, and Members of Parliament and the public want security. It will never be easy to do construction work in this place. That is a reality, so it will probably never be possible to absolutely nail down the cost of a project right at the beginning and to know where we will get to at the end. We will find new issues and challenges and it will be difficult, but there are lessons we must learn, and be shown to learn, if we are to retain the confidence that public money is being properly spent.
I echo the comments of the Chair of the Finance Committee about the issue of paying staff properly for this sort of work—I have gone on about it ad nauseam, I know. It is a problem. The reality is that in certain areas—construction and IT systems—we are competing with the private sector in London. There is great pressure for those services and we end up bringing in contractors and agency staff and paying more than we would if we appointed people to the House service. In the end, it is a matter of being more flexible about the rules within which we have to operate, regarding the comparison between our pay grades and those of the civil service. That is a challenge we must recognise, and the unions have brought it to our attention. That is not in any way to denigrate the other people who work in the House—exactly the opposite. The Chair of the Finance Committee is absolutely right that we should give them great credit for the service they give us, right across the field, and for their dedication to working for the House, for us and for democracy. That should be put on record.
There have been comments about R and R and the northern estate and I will not go into what has already been said, but I am concerned about the considerable complications of the shadow R and R arrangements. The little draft diagrams about decision making under the arrangements are very challenging indeed. I also sit on the Members Estimate Audit Committee, and the other day I asked the National Audit Office whether, if there were a problem with the shadow R and R arrangements, it could be certain, as our auditor, of identifying where responsibility and accountability lay. I think it would be hard pushed to do that. It has gone away to consider it, but it is a worry, and we are heading for problems if we set up a system in which we cannot point with absolute certainty to where decisions are made and accountability rests. Everyone always blames everyone else when something goes wrong, so there is a challenge there that we ought to think about. I do not know how to get around it, because until we get to the final stage of the statutory arrangements it is very difficult indeed, but the shorter the period of shadow arrangement the better, and the less chance of things going wrong.
I have two final points. I first thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for how he has chaired the Committee this year. We perhaps set off with a different idea of who the Chair should be, but I nevertheless thank him for the inclusive way in which he has run the Committee. We have worked together to address some of the issues and I put on record my thanks to him. Also, the Chair rightly mentioned Myfanwy Barrett, who is leaving us. I have worked with her with various hats on, on the Finance Committee, as a pension trustee on the House of Commons Members’ fund, and on the Audit Committee, and she appears at all these meetings to give us very appropriate and sound advice. I talked initially about how we used to do finance in this place and how we now have proper systems in place, and much of the credit for that goes to Myfanwy. She has changed the system and brought us into line, with proper arrangements with which appropriately to run the finances of this place. We can all be pleased about that. I am sorry she is going, but I wish her well and thank her for what she has done for us. No doubt there will be opportunities to thank her again in Committee, but this is probably the only chance we will get in the wider forum of Parliament, so I would like to put that on record.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I am sure that this cannot make up the full set of all those who were reading this report late last night in preparation for this morning’s debate. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today, and I am pleased to be here to participate in this important debate on the House of Commons financial plan and draft estimates.
I apologise straight away that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not here. By rights, she should be responding to this debate. I am happy to be here in her place, and I know she spoke last week to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Finance Committee, to explain that she would not be able to be here today. She would like me to convey her apologies again this morning. She will be following the debate very closely through Hansard, and I will ensure that key points are brought to her attention.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Westminster Hall debate. I pay tribute to his hard work in chairing the Finance Committee and his dedication to the work on the finances for this place. I also thank him for his work with the Government in the cross-cutting parts of the draft estimates where work needs to be done in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, she has asked me to thank the Finance Committee for its report, which represents the Committee’s provisional advice to the Commission, and the Members Estimate Committee for the 2019-20 to 2022-23 medium-term financial plan and the 2019-20 Administration and Members estimates. I am absolutely sure that she and all other members of the Commission and of the Estimate Committee will want carefully to consider the points made by Members today. I am also sure that they will want to carefully consider the thanks that have been expressed to the staff of the Committee and connected teams.
The Government continue to support a well-run House of Commons and share its drive to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the service. A high-quality service in support of Members’ duties is integral to the success and strength of our democracy and supporting processes. It is vital that all of us—Members and their staff, staff of the House, and the public—see that this House is committed to the delivery of a service that is both first class and excellent value for money. Today’s debate invites the House to consider those issues.
The purpose of the debate is to give Members the opportunity to comment on the advice before it is finalised, as the hon. Member for Rhondda set out in his opening statement. This annual debate on the draft estimates began in the previous Parliament and took place in 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the main Chamber: a point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It subsequently fell into abeyance and so this is the first debate of its type in this Parliament. I know that the Chair of the Finance Committee submitted this as a Backbench Business debate, so we are here in Westminster Hall, but I hear the point about how it ought to be held in the Chamber. Perhaps that can be considered for the future. The fact that we are having this debate is to be welcomed because it allows the issues to be properly looked at in addition to the work of the Committees involved.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke on behalf of the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Sheffield South East for their contributions, in addition to the Chair of the Committee for setting out the issues.
A question was asked about why the two estimates are separate. It derives from legislation, so it could be regarded as a shared responsibility between the House and the Executive. It was argued that the two estimates could be combined, and there might be value in doing so. I understand that trying to merge them was the subject of a private Member’s Bill in 2016, when points were made on both sides of the argument. However, there was a desire from the Treasury to be able to continue to offer the right level of scrutiny and support to the House of Commons to be able to manage the expenditure, which would not be possible if the two estimates were merged. I am happy to ask colleagues to look further at those issues, which are not in my current brief.
Chris Bryant
No, not quite. Anyway, I am grateful.
I will respond to some of the earlier comments about R&R, or whether we should value this building or go off to a park in Milton Keynes—people always choose Milton Keynes. The problem with the argument for moving out of here and going somewhere else entirely is that because our system has the Executive within the Parliament we would effectively have to take the whole of Government with us as well.
I know that people argue, as I have myself sometimes, that Britain is far too London-centric, and that too much of the economy is focused on London and the south-east. However, the truth is that moving the whole of Government out of London to some other place, building some massive building, buying an enormous site and then providing accommodation for all those people would be more expensive than staying here, not least because this is a world heritage site. It is one of the most recognisable buildings in the world. We would still have to maintain it, even if we were going to hand it over to someone else anyway.
There would therefore be no cost saving. There may be political arguments, which I do not share, about the Union from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), and about other elements. However, in the end I do not think that there is any real alternative that is financially advantageous to the taxpayer that involves moving us out of the Palace in the long run. The hon. Gentleman also said that we will build a Chamber exactly like the one we have at present. There may be many good reasons for changing the way in which we do our business, but restoration and renewal is not one of them.
If we want to make changes, that is perfectly within the will of the House, but it is up to the House to make those decisions, rather than to have them foisted upon us because of some kind of building project. As I understand it, the Clerks are already working on IT so that we will be able to vote in the Division Lobbies with our thumbprints or fingerprints, instead of having to walk through and tell them our names and all the rest of it.
As for the main substance of today’s debate, it is important that we scrutinise the finances of the House. They are not the biggest numbers in all Government expenditure, but they are very significant numbers, and over the next few years they will grow rapidly. One of the concerns of our Committee is that there is not much transparency about where decisions are made and whether they have been good decisions. As we move into the process of restoration and renewal, there is a danger that, if there is an extended period with a shadow Sponsor Board and a shadow delivery authority, where decisions are actually being made on very dramatic amounts of money will be even more opaque.
For instance, major decisions are being made on the northern estate project, which at the moment is not part of the restoration and renewal project, regarding the design, how many floors there should be, and what planning applications we should be submitting. Those decisions are currently being made somewhere between the Finance Committee, the accounting officer, and the commission. The shadow sponsor body will start to make key decisions, but, because it will not have statutory effect until the law is brought in, those decisions will have to be ratified by the Finance Committee advising the commission.
If that period goes on for too long, there is a danger that we will end up with bad decisions, uncertain outcomes and uncertain delivery of the project and the finances. The Government can make a material difference to that by introducing the legislation. We have it in draft form at the moment, and we are delighted that that has sped up a bit, thanks to the Leader of the House. However, we need to ensure that in the next Session we get on with passing that legislation as fast as possible.
The one caveat I add is that we should consider very carefully the fact that until 2004 the Palace, like all other royal palaces, was its own planning authority. Since 2004, we have not been our own planning authority, and we are subject to the planning decisions of Westminster City Council. We have a very good working relationship with the council at the moment, but in essence the project will completely dwarf its whole planning department. To all intents and purposes, we will be paying for a new planning department foisted on Westminster City Council. There is an argument for us saying, “Frankly, we should just have it in house, rather than being subject to Westminster City Council.”
I say that because one of the key decisions that is yet to be made concerns the lighting in Westminster Hall; I think that battle has been going on with the planning authorities for the best part of 12 years. That is why we still have hideous arc lamps on the side, on chunks of scaffolding poles, in one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. If we are unable to make timely decisions, we will end up making more expensive decisions. We need at least to examine whether we should make ourselves our own planning authority.
I am enormously grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, to Myfanwy and her team, who are admirable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the House of Commons Financial Plan 2019-20 to 2022-23 and draft Estimates for 2019-20.