Procedure of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course the recommendation could have been considered earlier in the Parliament, but it was not. As it was not considered, it is important that before the new Parliament Members are able to express their views on it.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I think my right hon. Friend has inadvertently misled the House. The recommendation from the Procedure Committee in 2011 that we should visit this issue and vote on whether the election of the Speaker should be by secret ballot was a reiteration of an argument that that Committee first put forward in 2009, as it felt that the decision should have been made before the 2010 election.

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point. There was a clear view from the Procedure Committee in 2009, but it was not acted on at the end of the last Parliament. It is possible to go on for ever not acting on those recommendations and arguments in one Parliament after another.

Business of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think the hon. Lady is being a little audacious in talking about “Desert Island Discs” when the Labour party cannot even sing “Stand By Your Man” very well. When she talked about somebody being cut off from all his friends, I thought she must have been referring to the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. Lady asked about last minute changes to business. Unusually, I have announced business three weeks ahead to 15 December. It is for the convenience of the House to have business announced as far ahead as possible, so I think that that is a good last minute change to make. She also asked about a particular item of business on Thursday next week. I can assure her that it will be very clear by next Thursday.

We have just had a statement on the Smith commission report. It is very important for the House to debate these matters further and to debate the consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom, a point made by many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. As the Chair of the Cabinet Committee for Devolved Powers, I intend to ensure that the Government publish the options for England in a Command Paper before Christmas, following up the work of the Smith commission. I am sure the House will want to consider that, and I will make a statement at the time.

The hon. Lady asked about appropriate time to be given for the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. I have announced three days in Committee on the Floor of the House. There will be a clear gap between the Committee stage and Report. The Opposition wanted the Report stage to be after the Christmas recess and it will be. That will give the House time to reflect on all parts of the Bill, so I hope we have accommodated Opposition concerns on that. We have had productive discussions on this issue. The Bill is very important for our national security, but of course it needs to be properly scrutinised and considered in detail.

The hon. Lady asked about the autumn statement and poked fun at its being on 3 December. I have to remind her that autumn lasts until the winter solstice, which is normally on 21 December, or on 22 or 23 December in certain years. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that 3 December is very much within autumn.

The hon. Lady asked about universal credit. The previous Government were left with a welfare system in which for every extra £10 some people earned, they lost £9 in additional taxes. Universal credit is being designed to ensure that it pays to work and it is likely to deliver benefits to millions of people. Yes, it is always possible to criticise the implementation of IT projects, but it was estimated that the previous Government wasted £26 billion on IT projects that did not succeed. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), made a statement to the House, so Members have had the opportunity to discuss that.

The hon. Lady asked about relative incomes. Relative poverty in the last year for which we have figures, 2012-13, was at its lowest since the 1980s. We have 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than there were at the general election. The answer to poverty is to get people into work, and that is what the Government are achieving. She asked about a recovery for the many or the few. The previous Government left office with no recovery for anyone at all—neither many nor few. That is what the Opposition’s policies would bring about again.

The hon. Lady talked about comments within the Conservative party on various issues in the past week. It has not been a great week in the Labour party. She has made an exception of asking about the whereabouts of the Chief Whip this week. As I explained last week, he spent much time in Rochester. Really, the Opposition Chief Whip should have been there to tell members of the shadow Cabinet not to photograph people’s houses. She would have been well deployed—[Interruption.] Oh, she was there! Well, she obviously did not get to all the members of the shadow Cabinet.

After the stealth reshuffle that I think took place in September on the Opposition Front Bench, and the anti-climax reshuffle in October, we have now had the Rochester reshuffle in November. But we are pleased that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is still in place and we are absolutely delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is in place all the way to the general election.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on wildlife crime? Is the Leader of the House aware that the trade in endangered species is being facilitated by some courier firms, which transport animal parts and derivative products without inquiring what it is they are delivering? Should we not impose a greater duty on couriers, and should we not be doing more to stamp out this vile crime?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. There is a good case for a debate on this matter and I hope he will take it to the Backbench Business Committee. As chair of the ministerial committee on animal health and animal issues, I too feel extremely strongly on this issue. I believe there is more that Governments across the world can do, and I will be doing some work on that in the next few months.

Devolution and the Union

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is important that today’s debate is based on fact and reality. Given some things we have heard from outside commentators, and unfortunately from some hon. Members from time to time, one might think that we had a situation in which taxpayers in England are generously subsidising those in Scotland, and that Scottish MPs have been responsible for imposing legislation on residents of England against their will. That description is vastly at variance with reality, as hon. Members will know. Of course, I accept the straightforward reality that the level of Government spending per head in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as defined by Barnett, is slightly higher than that in England, taken as a whole, but the Barnett formula does not present the full picture. Indeed, Lord Barnett never suggested that it did.

The definitions of public spending in the different nations are not necessarily like for like. For example, water supplies in Scotland are in the public sector, whereas in England and Wales they are privatised, so in Scotland spending on water is counted as public expenditure, but in England and Wales it is not. The formula does not fully reflect the public expenditure involved in some of the activities of central Government and the state that are centred here in London. The activity of the state that we see in front of us every day in London generates an immense boost to the economy in the whole of the south-east of England. That is an economic stimulus that nowhere else in the UK enjoys to anything like the same degree.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Has not Lord Barnett himself said that the formula should not have continued for as long as it has?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

He did say that, but it did continue, and fairly successfully.

If one compares the relative figures for Government expenditure throughout the different parts of the UK, what is most striking is not the disparity between the averages in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as opposed to England, but the vast disparities within England. I have some sympathy with the complaint of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about the lack of Government spending in her constituency, because the south-east of England—her part of the country—gets two thirds less than average spending in London. London gets 20% above the average across the UK—higher than the relative advantages for Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Let me emphasise that just as I reject setting Scotland against England, I do not seek to set London against the rest of the UK. There are vast disparities of wealth within London, and the economic activity that it undertakes generates burdens as well. My point is that the Barnett formula is only part of the picture. It is a formula for spending, but not one based on a real needs assessment—that is widely accepted. For example, it does not take account of the costs for Government services of remoteness, or of levels of poverty or other social need. Nor does it take account of the contribution that different parts of the UK make to central Government revenues. Scotland is one of the highest contributors of taxation to central Government revenues—the third highest, I think, in the UK. Different areas and nations put more in; different areas and nations take different amounts out.

Let us get away from the idea that the Barnett formula is a subsidy for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We are in a state where different nations and different parts of nations will contribute in varying degrees to Government revenue, and different nations and different parts of nations will see Government expenditure at varying levels. I welcome that, because I believe that the strength of the UK is that, with the right Government and the right policies, we can pool and share resources. Indeed, there has not been enough pooling and sharing of resources to tackle some of the real poverty that we see in communities in cities, regions and rural areas throughout the UK.

On English votes for English legislation, there is of course an anomaly. I am not for one minute diminishing the concerns that have been raised in the House, but I wonder how far they are shared among the general population of England. Obviously, MPs from England will know that better than I do.

I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that this issue can be relatively simply dealt with and does not, in any sense, justify any delay in the further devolution that was promised before the referendum. There must not be a cherry-picking of certain bits of political reform that suit the short-term political interests of one or other political party. We can all point to the history of anomalies that this constitution—this state—has had over decades. In the old days, there was the situation with Northern Irish MPs being able to vote as supporters of the Conservative party. There is the whole anomaly, to put it mildly, of the House of Lords. We have to recognise that we need political reform to deal with the alienation of so many people from our political system, but it should not just be piecemeal. It needs to address House of Lords reform. Electoral reform needs to be back on the agenda. The whole issue of regional government in England and Wales needs to be taken seriously. There needs to be root-and-branch reform that is based on respect between the various nations of the UK, and a recognition of the seriousness of the political crisis that is facing politics across the UK.

Finances of the House of Commons

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the First Report of the Finance and Services Committee, HC 757, and the draft medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in the Appendix to the Report; and endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate for 2015-16 in line with the financial remit set by the House of Commons Commission.

I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this opportunity again to present the financial plan for the House of Commons. This is the third occasion on which the Finance and Services Committee has sought such a debate. It provides an opportunity for Members to have their say on the House’s finances and the services provided for them.

In my judgment, these debates have increased transparency. They have allowed Members to question the finances and the services that come from them. They have enabled not only questions to be asked but amendments to be made to the plans. All of that has led to a greater ownership by Members of the plans. During this Parliament, the Finance and Services Committee has been working to improve governance, including promoting better oversight of the Members estimate by Member bodies and a new Standing Order on motions with financial consequences for the House, as well as its reports and these debates.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

We should all strive to save money, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless point out in his speech that some economies available to business are not available to the running of this place? In particular, will he refer the House to paragraph 26 on page 10?

[John Thurso]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, one that informed the very beginning of our first debate. Above all else, our job as a Parliament is to scrutinise Government, to legislate and to work for our constituents. The application of resource must be for that purpose. The savings we make, or the efficiency with which we undertake that operation, come as a consequence; they do not drive the way in which we seek to do our business. The overall point my right hon. Friend makes is absolutely taken and I will allude to it at various points during my remarks. I pay tribute to the fact that he has raised the point now and to his excellent contribution to the Committee.

I thank the director of finance and the other House staff for their positive engagement with the Committee, and for all their work and assistance in helping us to prepare the report and our advice to the Commission on the estimate. The finance team, led by the finance director, has undertaken very considerable improvements, including to the accounting system, management accounts, budgeting processes, management accounts and procurement systems. All are helping us to be more efficient and to get better outcomes both in terms of the costs of services and, importantly, what they deliver for us.

May I also use this moment to pay tribute to all the staff who serve us throughout the House service in all areas? I truly think, having now engaged with them for the best part of four years, that had I had such a staff in private life, I would have considered it a privilege to have had them working with me. I think they can be proud of everything that they do for us and we should be very grateful for it.

The Commission is required, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, to lay an estimate each year seeking the House’s approval to fund administration services. These include the maintenance of the estate, security, the Clerks and the Library staff who advise us, and all the other staff who look after us so well: Hansard; the printing of papers and reports; education, visitor and outreach services; and IT systems. The role of the Finance and Services Committee is to work with the management of the House to prepare a draft estimate for the Commission to consider in December.

The Committee also monitors—this is a new task we have taken on recently—the Members estimate, which funds the Treasury contribution to the parliamentary contributory pension fund, Short money and Members’ ICT equipment. However, the role of the Finance and Services Committee does not extend to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or Members’ pay and allowances, which are dealt with separately.

I am pleased to report that the savings target, which we set in 2010, has been achieved—although there are one or two loose ends currently being tidied up in the savings programme. The House is not bound by the Government’s spending plans. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), it is absolutely correct that we have the appropriate resource to undertake our work of scrutiny of Government and as legislators. None the less, it is important that we do so while taking account of the world we live in. The Commission therefore decided, before the 2010 election, that the House needed to reflect what was going on in the wider public sector and to ensure best value for the taxpayer. The Commission committed itself to a reduction in the administration estimate of at least 17% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. That meant setting a budget of £210 million for 2014-15 compared to a baseline of £231 million for 2010-11.

In December 2013, the Commission agreed an administration estimate for 2014-15 of £201.3 million. However, because of transfers between votes—most notably the merger of the House staff pension scheme into the civil service scheme and other exceptional factors—some adjustments are required to compare that figure with the target of £210 million. However, allowing for all of those factors—details are in the Committee's report—the estimate laid for 2014-15 is some £2 million below the target set in 2010. Part of that is due to a change of culture that has taken place within management and staff, and the fact that we now recognise that resource, once allocated, does not belong to a department and where not required can be returned rather than being spent to preserve the budget. I commend them for that change.

The Commission also decided that savings should be achieved, through detailed analysis of services and how they were delivered, to arrive at something better—not simply cheaper. For example, changes have been introduced in the way in which Select Committee evidence is submitted, processed and published. Less Select Committee evidence is being physically printed. That has not only reduced printing costs, but has allowed a reorganisation of staff in the Committee Office that has provided increased resources for priority areas within the Select Committee work stream.

Members will also be aware that the system for providing them with written answers has recently changed. In the past, written answers were walked across Whitehall in multiple copies—sometimes 500 to 600 answers a day in the Commons alone—and Members mostly received their answers only the following day when they were published in Hansard. They are now delivered electronically. Not only do Members receive their written answers by e-mail as soon as the answer is submitted by a Government Department, but the House will be saving nearly £800,000 every year in printing and related costs.

[Sir Greg Knight]

The changes to written questions are a vast improvement. In many cases under the old system, the press received the answer before the Member.

[John Thurso]

I concur with my right hon. Friend. It is a saving that has made life better for us, which is our objective.

Major savings have been made through reducing the amount of printing undertaken. For example, some lightly used publications are now only available online and most Committees have agreed to distribute papers electronically. The House is aiming for a “digital first” approach, and the Committee expects this to be a source of further financial savings in the coming years.

As someone who spent his professional life in the hospitality industry before entering this place, it gives me particular pleasure to report that significant progress has been made in the past few years in reducing the net cost of catering. My right hon. Friend referred earlier to paragraph 26, which relates to catering, and I fully accept that because of the hours we work and the way we need to be serviced, it is not possible to make the same profit as if we were a fully operational food and beverage operation, but that should not stop us seeking to be as effective as possible in the delivery of the service.

In 2009-10, at the end of the last Parliament, the net cost of catering and retail services was £5.7 million. In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million. That exceeds the target set of reducing the net cost to under £3 million by 2015. I particularly compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the Chairman of the Administration Committee, and his Committee on all the work they have done in this area. The savings have been achieved by good old-fashioned sound management of costs and by benchmarking, and it has been achieved at a time when the House has moved to being a living wage employer and has got rid of zero-hours contracts. The staff and the unions, as well as the management, should be applauded for their help in that.

I never expected to see it in my lifetime, but we are now making great progress in working together with the other place. Under a joint procurement process, procurement for the House of Lords, the House of Commons and Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology is all operated by one dedicated service that must produce savings for all three.

The report also considers the prospects for the next four years. In June, the Commission agreed that forward plans for up to 2018-19 should be based on an assumption that the budget for core activities is flat in real terms—that, taking account of Government pay policy and the target for consumer prices inflation, the expenditure envelope for the administration estimate is assumed to increase by 1% in 2015-16 and by 2% thereafter. I stress that this is a working assumption, not a target; actual budgets will be set annually, and clearly it will be for our successor Parliament to decide what it wishes to do, but this establishes a good working base from which the management can proceed.

Even on that relatively generous assumption, it is projected that further savings will be required in 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The House service will continue to look for opportunities to make further efficiencies and ensure value for money in the delivery of services through a continuous improvement process that focuses on making services more effective by improving their quality, increasing productivity, cutting costs—or, in the best of all worlds, all three. That most often takes the form of process reviews that engage staff in a continuous review of their work and harness their own creativity to solve problems. There are numerous examples of this, but the goal is to make small savings in time and effort, while maintaining or improving services.

In setting the financial remit, the Commission agreed that some new activities could be undertaken without necessarily having to be financed from within the existing budget. The two main areas are, first, scrutiny and related functions—the Committee received a bid from Chamber and Committee Services regarding Select Committees that we were minded to advise the Commission to accept—and, secondly, the resource consequences of major building refurbishment.

The Commission is keen to deliver a resolution of the House passed in 2007 that there should be dedicated space for education visitors. Construction has now started on a new education centre in Victoria Tower gardens that will accommodate 100,000 children a year, as opposed to the 45,000 we can currently accommodate. In addition, the facility will reduce pinch points, such as the Portcullis House entrance, and release the Macmillan room for other uses. It is due to open, we hope, in 2015.

Following the Wright Committee report at the end of the last Parliament, Select Committees have been one of the success stories of the Parliament, and the Liaison Committee is keen that this success be built on. As I just mentioned, the Finance and Services Committee is recommending a modest increase of £900,000 in the resources available to Select Committees, either in the form of additional staff or by providing additional budget. The Committee is also due to consider a bid from the Library that would enable it to provide more research support.

Members will be aware that the two Houses need to decide how the backlog of work required on this building is to be tackled—a project known as the restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. R and R will be a major infrastructure programme that will not start in earnest until after 2020—well beyond the time frame of the budgets we are considering today. An independent options appraisal has been commissioned and is due to be published shortly after the election. Current thinking is that the two Houses might be asked to take a decision on their preferred option in spring 2016.

In the meantime, other buildings we occupy, including 1 Canon Row, the Norman Shaw buildings and 1 Parliament street, require significant refurbishment. This work will not only tackle the day-to-day problems that many colleagues have encountered—leaking toilets, rodents and other problems—but optimise the accommodation we occupy outside the Palace and complete that work before R and R begins. I warn hon. Members, therefore, that in the next Parliament many colleagues and staff will need to move offices as work on the various buildings proceeds. Office moves by House staff to facilitate this process and to co-locate Committee and Library staff have already begun.

Although much of the refurbishment work is capital spending, it can result in quite large accounting changes, largely because heritage and security issues mean that the value of refurbishment is not fully reflected in an increase in the book value of the buildings and that therefore a charge needs to be made. The Commission’s remit does not require the substantial notional charges or other resource consequences of the building work, such as decant space, to be met from within the core budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

Yes, absolutely. It was purely for budgeting purposes that the two were linked.

We faced a number of obstacles. For instance, there had been a 10% across-the-board hike in prices before our Committee and, indeed, the Finance and Services Committee, had taken office, and that had an initially bad effect on footfall.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the problems arose from the fact that decisions were made by the House of Commons Commission when it was under full complement? Does he hope, as I certainly do, that in the next Parliament the Commission will not make any potentially difficult or controversial decisions until it has a full complement of members and Back Benchers on both sides of the House are represented on it?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I certainly agree that that would be desirable. We have tried to anticipate circumstances in which the last price review will outlive the current Parliament, so that there will be some cover while the time is taken to reconstitute Committees which may be subject to the deliberations of the Governance Committee and which may consequently take a different form.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority introduced a subsistence allowance of £15, which I think has had a malign effect on the propensity of Members to use the facilities of the House. Some told their electorates beforehand that they would not claim it, while others simply do not feel comfortable about claiming it while they are away from home on parliamentary business. That has, to an extent, reduced the uptake of facilities, especially in the Members’ Dining Room. I found IPSA’s rule that the allowance would be available only if the House’s business continued beyond 7.30 pm very difficult to understand, but IPSA has stuck to it firmly, despite all my efforts to persuade it otherwise. It seems to me that whether the House sits until 7.29 or 7.31, the fact remains that many Members who are distant from their homes will have to eat away from home. Many Members now do not eat on the estate, which has had several bad effects.

I cannot be certain whether that led to the vote to change the House’s Tuesday sitting hours, although a significant number of Members voted for the change. I have counted them out, as it were. There is a pattern which suggests that if they were no longer deemed by IPSA to qualify for help from the taxpayer for the maintenance of another dwelling close to Westminster, they would prefer to leave earlier rather than returning to, in some instances, fairly distant parts of London late at night. That has led to a disappearance of Members and a weakening of the collegiate nature of the House which I remember from the past.

The Administration Committee has tried to come up with an offer featuring the widest possible variety and appeal in order to sustain demand. However, if Members, staff and other passholders are not using our facilities for whatever reason, the Committee’s policy is to let others do so, on the strict understanding that that does not interfere with the prime purpose of the business of the House. We have encouraged third-party commercial hire; we have introduced room-hire fees, not uncontroversially; and tomorrow and the next day, members of the public will be allowed to book lunch in the Members’ Dining Room for the first time. Once that had been advertised, it was a sell-out. We shall await the subsequent report, and then consider whether the same might be done during parliamentary recesses.

The figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I have given are not recognised by the media. We are constantly told that the catering and retail deficit is what it was at the start of the current Parliament, rather than what it has become since we have been introducing our new policies. Sometimes it has been rounded up to more than £6 million, and on one occasion the deficit carried by the House of Lords was included in our figures. A continual wish to denigrate does not help us to give credit to all the people who have worked so hard to be responsible, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend explained.

The media suggest that this is all about 650 Members of Parliament advantaging themselves. However, there are 13,000 passholders on the estate, many of whom earn much less than Members of Parliament, and the catering service is aimed at everyone who has legitimate cause to be here. As I have said, the deficit has been halved. I hope that that will be recognised, and that we will make continuous efforts to achieve further savings and improvements. I pay tribute to the director of catering services, Richard Tapner-Evans, and to the whole of his team for the way in which they have responded to change while maintaining, in my view, very high quality and the reputation of the House’s catering.

On the retail side, I think that we have seen nothing short of a revolution. When I was first elected to this House, the only branded products that were available were whisky and cigarettes. For many of us, to give a bottle of whisky on every occasion when we were asked to contribute a prize was too expensive, and even in those days we did not really think of giving cigarettes. Now we have a fine and expanding range of quality gifts and souvenirs. Across the House revenue is up 11% in the July-September quarter compared with the equivalent period last year. The new Jubilee shop opened on schedule in July. The whole area around it has been refurbished, and sales are strong. The only niggle I have is that signage to the facility should be sufficiently prominent, and we have engaged in a lively debate with English Heritage about the nature of the signage we can have to attract the eye, and I hope we are winning on that one.

The Houses of Parliament shop on the corner of Bridge street now trades on Saturdays. It is unbelievable that it did not trade on Saturdays before. It now has more engaging window displays. Clearly that outlet is directed more to tourists and general visitors to London, and, frankly, how anyone ever thought tourists were coming to London specifically to hunt down a biography of Stanley Baldwin or Ramsay MacDonald is beyond me. The gifts and souvenirs that are in there now have made all the difference in the world to the trade that is done there. In August of this year alone sales were around 40% higher than in August last year.

The Members’ shop on the Terrace has seen an increase in the value of transactions as more product lines are introduced, some of which are exclusive to that shop. The summer fair in July in Westminster Hall built on the success of last year’s Christmas fair, and the Christmas fair itself will be repeated on 2 December upcoming, with 60 new product lines available.

In the matter of encaustic tiles, I owe the House an apology—[Interruption]—and not least my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). I was asked by him about encaustic tiles and the possibility of selling the ones that have been retrieved, and I am afraid I gave a very inaccurate answer on that occasion. I am glad to say that that has been triumphantly overcome, however, in that the tiles that have come out whole and satisfactorily have been marketed. They are in a splendid box with a certificate of authenticity signed by me and my opposite number in the other place, Lord Sewel. We have already sold about 100 of them, with, I hope, more to go.

Finally on the retail side, I would like to compliment Diana Christou, who was appointed as director of retail. She has brought great experience and imagination to her work and she and her whole team are to be complimented on what has been achieved.

Our other experimental activity is the introduction of filming within the Palace. This is seen by many as a remarkable location and we tested the water with the film “Suffragette”, which, of course, did have a distinct connection with this place. On the basis of that experience, we are continuing to consider other filming proposals on a case-by-case basis, but we do see great possibilities.

On tours and visitors and bringing more people into the Palace, which has an impact on the bottom line, I can tell the House that since 1 April we have welcomed 127,000 paying visitors to the Houses of Parliament, 84,000 of them over the summer recess. The House was awarded the accolade of best guided tour at the group leisure awards 2014 and a certificate of excellence from TripAdvisor.

In the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions annual benchmarking exercise the House came fourth out of 80 attractions for overall level of enjoyment. Also rated as excellent were staff helpfulness and friendliness and the guided tour and audio guide.

Commercial tours have expanded in range and availability. An extra hour has been added to the length of the commercial tour day. Audio guided tours have been introduced, including a family tour. The art and architecture tours continue to be popular and will be expanded in 2015. The tactile tours for blind and visually impaired visitors are also popular and are offered once a month.

In the light of the popularity of guided and audio tours of the rest of the Palace, it may be worth visiting sooner rather than later the issue of charging for tours of the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben. That issue was highlighted in the House a couple of years ago, and recently 254 e-mail requests were received within the first five minutes of opening for bookings for visits to the Elizabeth Tower, meaning that places were filled within the first two minutes. Expectation from the public has shot up, and it is an expectation we are now having the greatest difficulty in meeting.

Work also continues to establish a logical visitor route, or to make the one we have comprehensible. That is coded language for saying we do the thing the wrong way round. No other tour brings the visitor in at the exit, walks them through to the start and then walks them back again. This is adding to the congestion of the Palace, which was never designed for that number of visitors. The situation at the pinch-points becomes exaggerated, of course, with those numbers going through. This is totally inefficient and unreasonable, and we must consider how we can provide the best possible experience for visitors.

I am grateful to the House for listening to this very concentrated description of what the Administration Committee has been trying to do in its contribution to the overall savings programme. Our overall rationale has been that the Palace of Westminster is a working building—the heart of our democracy—but that it also happens to be an iconic architectural masterpiece. Referring back to something my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, with the restoration and renewal project to be faced up to in the next Parliament, it is crucial that we save this building. We will be criticised very strongly if we fail to ensure that this symbol of our Parliament and our democracy is maintained to the highest level, to see through another 100 or 150 years.

I have the honour of chairing the Administration Committee, and I want to thank in passing all those who help us most closely in our work. We are a working building and also a visitor attraction and we consider them to be complementary roles. We have been determined in all we have sought to do to preserve the essential purpose of this place, while promoting access to the public, who take great pride in this building and what it means. I have seen the emotion of many people who have come here for the first time in their lives, sometimes in their elderly years, and it is clearly a great experience for them. I do not regard it as in any way cheapening this Palace for it to be more welcoming to visitors, and I know Mr Speaker is anxious that we should make sure that that welcome is warm, while, of course, guarding our security. These are difficult issues to reconcile at times, but the Committee has the interests of this Parliament and this Palace at the very forefront of its considerations, while at the same time trying to ensure that we are responsible in governing its finances and the facilities it contains.

Business of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I absolutely concur with her opening words on our sadness about what happened yesterday in Ottawa and our strong solidarity with the Government and people of Canada. They were very much in our thoughts as news of the incident broke yesterday. Of course, we will continue to work closely with Canada and many other nations on countering terrorism and protecting our own and their national security.

The hon. Lady asked about the Committee stage of the Recall of MPs Bill. I certainly agree that recall should be about the conduct of Members, rather than the opinions of Members. The House will be able to make its own decisions in Committee. The Standards Committee does a very good job. It currently has 10 MPs and three lay members, and it is for the House to consider whether there should be any change. Proposals may be put forward by any Member of the House.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on mentioning the deficit this week. Last week, we were waiting for mentions of the deficit. It is brave of her to mention it on the day when the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that, under Labour’s plans, there would be £28 billion of additional deficit and additional borrowing. That is the scale of the black hole that has been described by a left-leaning institute. It raises a set of additional questions that Labour has to answer. The Chancellor has emphasised all along that, although the deficit has fallen by more than a third under this Government, there is more work to do. That has to be recognised by Labour Members as well.

The hon. Lady asked about the return of foreign national offenders. There was an urgent question to the Home Secretary on that earlier this week, so the House has discussed the matter in some detail. Under this Government some 22,000 foreign national offenders have been removed. Numbers are now going up again, and we are taking additional action to reduce the number of appeals.

On the European arrest warrant, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government have exercised the opt-out from justice and home affairs measures following votes in both Houses. That will bring about the biggest return of power from Brussels to Britain since we became a member of the European Union. That is an entirely welcome development, but it is important that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to bring serious international criminals, such as members of paedophile rings and human traffickers, to justice. That is why we are negotiating to rejoin a smaller set of measures. Those negotiations have not yet concluded, but once they have we will return to the House. The protection of our national interest and fighting crime are obviously prime considerations, as well as the independence of the country and our freedom to decide things in this House.

The hon. Lady asked about a number of party matters, and I assure her that we are not pandering to anybody—[Interruption.] She is always fascinated by the whereabouts of the Chief Whip, and I assure her that he is gainfully employed in many different ways—[Laughter.] Gainfully was the word, just so Hansard is correct, rather than “gamefully”. In a similar vein, I congratulate the hon. Lady on still being in post following the first stealth reshuffle in the history of Her Majesty’s Opposition under any party. It was trailed in advance by the New Statesman as something that would bring back “the big beasts” to the Opposition Front Bench. The biggest thing we can identify is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) becoming shadow Europe Minister. That does not constitute the return of the big beasts growling at us from the Opposition Benches, but it is possibly the first ever reshuffle that hardly anybody in the country has noticed. We wonder whether the people who were reshuffled have yet noticed that they were reshuffled because we have not seen much spark of life from them, but we are happy to see the hon. Lady in her position today.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources? Is my right hon. Friend aware that within a few days we will be undertaking the flawed ritual of putting our clocks back, thereby plunging the nation into darkness by mid-afternoon? Can we examine the benefits of having summertime in winter and double summertime in summer? If, as I suspect, the only objectors are a handful of Scots, can we say to them, “You want more powers for your Parliament, so we will give you powers to set your own time zone”?

[Mr Hague]

The House has debated this issue over the past few years. I am not sure that Scots are the only objectors, as in North Yorkshire we would also be plunged into darkness quite early in the morning. There are many different views on the matter around the House, but it is, of course, open to my right hon. Friend, who feels strongly about it, to pursue it. There have been private Members’ Bills on the issue in the past, and I have no doubt that there will be in future.

Business of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The House will recall that the Prime Minister said that the data the previous Government used to measure child poverty related to relative poverty and that, on that measure, it has come down. The figures for 2011-12, the latest period for which data are available, show the number of children in relative poverty to be 2.3 million, a fall of 300,000 from 2009-10, when the figure was 2.6 million. The latest data from this Parliament show that the number of children in relative poverty has fallen by 300,000.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on transport? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government, at a time when they are seeking to spend billions of pounds to enable a few trains to run faster, have bizarrely announced that they want to lower the speed limit on certain sections of the M1 motorway, and for reasons other than road safety, which is without precedent? We already have the lowest road speed limits in Europe, and only 8% of travellers choose to travel by rail, so will the Government announce a new initiative—HSM1?

Finances of the House of Commons

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point and he and I have corresponded on the matter. It was precisely to ensure the robustness of the decision that the Commission decided to look for external professional assistance with no optimism bias, internal bias or anything else. I have a private view on what the result will probably be, but it would be quite wrong of me to state it publicly before we have seen the results of the work. If we get the best experts we can to consider the issue completely dispassionately and judge it against the criteria we put forward, we must wait and see what they say. I will not prejudge the outcome of their work. It will take a little time to do the report and I suspect that the decision will therefore be one for the next Parliament—although probably for very early in that Parliament. That is probably the correct way forward.

Let me now turn to the education centre. In the last Parliament, a decision was made on the recommendation of the Admin Committee to create a dedicated education centre substantially to increase the number of school visits to Parliament. In the light of the likelihood of the restoration and renewal programme’s going ahead and the financial conditions prevailing at the time, the Commission decided not to proceed with the full-on version but instead to proceed with a more modest approach, which is that being proposed at the moment. The proposal is for a demountable building to be placed on Victoria embankment. It will comprise five education rooms with appropriate facilities for looking after schoolchildren and a dedicated security entrance. The latter, of course, will have the added benefit of meaning that they will not have to come through security at Portcullis House. I know that occasionally there is a clash between the interests of Members and those of the education centre, so that is a happy bonus.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble and hon. Friend for giving way. Will the separate entrance to the proposed building have annual security cost implications? Is not the estimate for maintaining security at the education centre almost £500,000 a year?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I would say to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, that I was about to bring out the proper concerns he and other members of the Committee hold on that point. I will deal with them fully in just a moment.

The plans I have outlined will allow an extra 55,000 pupils a year to visit us. The current number is 45,000, so it will more than double. I emphasise that quite a lot of research has been done that makes it very clear that engaging with schoolchildren by getting them to come and see this place first hand and be shown how we work is by far one of the most effective ways of securing engagement in politics. I therefore set out not only to defend the education centre, but to advocate it robustly—we ought to be very proud of it.

The plans will depend on a number of factors, one of which is planning permission, which probably will not be dealt with until January or February. I thought it appropriate to draw that to the House’s attention today, as with a bit of luck, a fair wind and planning permission children could be using the new education centre this time next year.

Some Members have made the valid point that perhaps we should put the education centre on hold until renewal and restoration have taken place, but I respectfully argue the exact opposite. The centre will allow twice as many children to come here, so if we were to wait the likely five to 10 years for R and R it could be 12 to 14 years before the additional children came here, by which time several generations of schoolchildren would have missed their chance completely, so it is very important.

The costs involved—about £7 million in capital costs and approximately £1 million in running costs—are quite appropriate and proportionate to what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is correct that a substantial chunk of the running costs—£470,000 or thereabouts—is for security, but the House’s total security costs are about £25 million, so in context it is not a particularly large sum. My point of view—I happily recognise that it is purely personal—is that £1 million, which we hope their lordships will consent to share with us, would be a suitable and proper investment in the education of our children and in getting them engaged with politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

We give constant thought to these things and will continue to do so to make sure that we have broadly categorised people correctly. I do not want to get into a mini-debate about some of the functions. I attend many of them and they do not always seem to me to be quite how they are painted, in terms of who patronises them and so on. Often the number of Members attending may not be quite as large as the event organisers were hoping, but we will look at the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) raised the question of political dining. The change that was made was instigated by two hon. Members who are still Members of the House. It was thought improper that profit should be made by a political organisation, be it a party or a trade union, through having access to these facilities. For many people that has seemed unduly restrictive, but I have always taken the view that if we were to be more relaxed about that, it would have to be on an understanding among the parties in this House that no one was seeking to gain an advantage over another. It is odd, is it not, that those who perhaps take the closest day-to-day interest in political affairs are the ones for whom it is now slightly more difficult to come here in the way they used to.

The other matter to which we have given attention because we believe it is capable of great improvement is how to achieve greater revenue from retail sales. I will admit to being a retailer at heart. My dad kept a shop and I served behind the counter from an early age to earn my pocket money. I have always had a desire to see how I can sell things to people. There is a tremendous opportunity. The people who come here appreciate the fact that there are things they can buy as a souvenir, and we could be much more effective in that regard.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I regularly show visitors around this building but I was shocked recently, going into St Stephen’s Hall, to see that it looked rather like a building site, with workmen hacking up the floor, removing the old tiles—I presume to be destroyed—and replacing them with new tiles. On the subject of increasing sales, why are those old floor tiles not being marketed for sale?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I think I can give my right hon. Friend a definitive answer. There are aspects of the tiles that would make them an unacceptable item for sale. Some of them are to be re-used. We are examining the possibility that reproductions of the original be considered for sale. They will not contain any noxious substances or sharp edges. It might be a very good sales item. I assure my right hon. Friend that I take his point.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979, noting that the Public Bill Office will assist Members as required in the preparation of such statements.

The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friends the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader hon Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my predecessor, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight).

I note that I may detain the House into the small hours of tomorrow morning if I so wish. That is a tempting proposition, as I have lots of scores to settle with many colleagues. However, as I quite like getting elected to things I will not, on this occasion, detain the House for long and will make a very short speech. I hope that colleagues will make very short speeches too, and that we can wend our way into the night for an evening of fun, frolicking and frivolity.

The report “Explanatory statements on amendments” is a serious piece of work undertaken, in the main, by my predecessor, and I was lucky enough to inherit it in October last year. The Committee is saying that explanatory statements to amendments are an extremely good thing: they allow for informed debate, and for people to have an understanding of what those tabling amendments are trying to achieve. We have, however, taken a permissive, rather than a prescriptive, view. We believe that the Government, if given the opportunity to do so, will want to do the right thing, and that the right thing is to put forward explanatory statements to amendments. I look at the Chief Whip and the Deputy Leader of the House and see two people totally committed to doing the right thing. They have done the right thing throughout their parliamentary careers—one of those careers has lasted for more than 40 years—and I am certain that that will continue to be the case for what remains of their illustrious parliamentary careers. I note that the Chief Whip is not smiling too much, so I will move on.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when considering changes to our procedures we should never do anything that might discourage scrutiny? Does he share my concerns that the amendment to the motion, if passed, could act as a deterrent to some amendments being tabled?

[Mr Walker]

One reason for not taking a prescriptive approach is that a disorderly explanatory statement attached to a reasonable amendment—perhaps one tabled in a short amount of time—might lead to it not getting on to the Order Paper, thus restricting debate.

To return to my central point, I believe that Members of Parliament, the Government and the Opposition should want to do the right thing, and I am hopeful that they will do the right thing. If they do not do the right thing, it would be reasonable for the House and the Procedure Committee to revisit the issue in the not-too-distant future.

Business of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked what I am thinking when I am sitting alongside the Leader of the House. I must ask her today what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) might be thinking as she sits alongside the shadow Leader of the House—she may be wondering whether it is vanity that has prevented the shadow Leader of the House from letting the hon. Lady who shadows me speak in questions, or perhaps the shadow Leader of the House was worried that her hon. Friend might outshine her at the Dispatch Box.

I am pleased that the shadow Leader of the House referred to the 2014 Liberal Democrat conference. I recommend that she attends, because I am sure that she would welcome the very open policy debates we have. She alleged that the Government were kicking their heels on legislation. As I read out, we are to debate pensions, high-speed rail and national insurance contributions—if she thinks those are minor issues, she needs to think again. She referred to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill and of course there will be an opportunity for it to be debated on the Opposition day she has provided. I reassure her that the Bill will be brought forward as soon as possible: as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The shadow Leader of the House referred again to Labour’s price freeze con. We all know that bills would go up before it, that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he could not guarantee things during the freeze if global prices went up and that the prices would go up afterwards. So we all know where that would lead. We had the nuclear statement at the beginning of the week, and I hope that she would have welcomed the fact that, finally, we are getting some investment in our energy industry. She may not be aware that over the next 10 to 15 years about 60% of our energy generation is going to be switched off as plants come to their end, so there was a need for the Government to take urgent action to address that. I would have thought that she would have welcomed that action.

Clearly we want to help families with the cost of living. The Government have introduced a number of measures that will do that: 25 million basic rate taxpayers are going to be £700 better off next year; we have capped rail fare rises; 3 million people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether; we stopped the 13p fuel duty rise that would have occurred under Labour; and we have capped the council tax. So this Government have a very proud record of tackling cost of living issues.

Finally, I would like to thank the shadow Leader of the House for again giving me the chance to mention at the Dispatch Box the save St Helier hospital campaign, which I am leading.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources, particularly daylight? Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that this weekend we are to undertake the flawed ritual of putting our clocks back by one hour, thereby plunging the UK into darkness by mid-afternoon? May we have the opportunity to examine the case for changing to British summer time and double summer time—putting our clocks forward an hour? That would make the afternoons lighter, it would reduce the number of road accidents and it would boost tourism.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, we are all in favour of making better use of daylight. I know that the House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am well aware of the arguments that my right hon. Friend is putting forward about the benefit that would be derived, particularly for the tourism industry and road safety. He may wish to consider raising the matter in a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate.

Sittings of the House

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That no change be made to the time at which the House sits on a Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Motion 2—Sittings of the House (Mondays) (1.00 pm to 8.30 pm)—

That this House should meet at 1.00 pm on Mondays, with a moment of interruption of 8.30 pm, and accordingly the changes to Standing Orders set out in the table be made, with effect from Monday 15 October 2012.

[Mr Knight]

I commend the Procedure Committee’s report on sitting hours—HC330—to any Member who has not yet read it because it will be helpful in determining the decisions to be made during this debate.

I have been surprised over the past two weeks to see reports in certain sections of the press suggesting that MPs were demanding shorter hours, and that at a “time of national crisis”, we were seeking to cut back on the number of hours that we work. That forced me to re-read my Committee’s report. As I suspected, I discovered no such proposition in it. In fact, the Committee concluded that the hours we spent at Westminster were broadly correct and should continue. I guess that the headline “MPs resolve to work as hard as ever but may choose different hours” does not have the same attraction for a sub-editor, even if it is accurate.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

It is difficult to believe that all the media got it so wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether his amended press release was taken up and reported by any of the media?

[Mr Knight]

Rather strangely, two sections of the press that had misreported what we were doing have now made changes on their website. It could well be that the truth has finally caught up with them.

It is usual for Select Committees to reach a firm conclusion and to ask the House to follow it, for very good reasons, but this usual practice is against the background of a Committee identifying an issue that needs attention or discovering a defect in our law or perhaps a fault in ministerial practice that warrants a particular remedy. That is not the case today. Although the Procedure Committee has expressed its view in the report, I wish to make it clear that on the issue of sitting hours, the Committee appreciates that each Member of Parliament has a different way of working. That means that in considering the House’s sitting hours, there are no mainstream options that are “right” or “wrong”, “antiquated” or “modern”, “effective” or ineffectual”: the whole issue is a matter of individual preference.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it is all a matter of individual preference. I travel from the Hebrides, and if we had a 1 o’clock start on Monday the furthest I could get by that time is Glasgow airport.

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to Mondays shortly.

The Procedure Committee accepts that our sitting hours are a matter of judgment for the House as a whole, which is why I have tabled motions to facilitate the majority view prevailing in respect of days Monday through to Thursday. Any changes made by the House will have consequences, which I hope Members will reflect on before they decide how to vote.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that it is not just a matter of individual preference; the House does not sit only in the Chamber, because Select Committees have to meet, preferably at times when they are not interrupted by votes and when witnesses can come a long distance to attend the meetings. That explains why Tuesday mornings, for example, are extensively used by Select Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

The right hon. Member has identified one of the consequences that would come into play if the House decided to change its sitting hours on Tuesdays.

It is not my intention on behalf of the Procedure Committee to cajole the House to vote in any particular way. I have tabled a number of motions to facilitate the House’s expressing a view, and if it wishes to make a change to sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays, it can do so today by voting for the appropriate motion.

I shall deal with the motions in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, starting with motion 1, which is to retain the status quo on Mondays. Many Members told the Procedure Committee they feel that earlier sittings would compromise the ability of Members from constituencies distant from London to make the journey to Westminster on Mondays—the point well made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). Those with constituencies closer to Westminster also made it clear that they valued the opportunity to carry out some constituency business on a Monday morning. If this motion to make no change to Mondays is passed, no further proposals will be put forward in respect of Mondays. If it is defeated—but only if it is defeated—I will move motion 2, which proposes a slightly earlier start. As no further proposals relating to Mondays have been tabled by any other Member, this will be the only alternative the House will be asked to consider.

Motion 3 is to retain the status quo on Tuesdays, and I will move it at the appropriate time. Similarly, if this is passed, there will be no further proposals dealing with Tuesdays. As I understand it, the other Tuesday motions—4 and 9—will in that event fall.

[Sir Bob Russell]

In its deliberations, did the Procedure Committee take into account the fact that the House used to have earlier Tuesday sitting hours, but it quickly restored the afternoon start because of the consequences, some of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has already alluded to?

[Mr Knight]

The Procedure Committee was well aware of why, having decided to sit earlier on Tuesdays as an experiment, the House subsequently failed to ratify that experiment. Speaking as a Member representing a northern constituency, I can point out other consequences. If we were to sit earlier on a Tuesday, some 750 people a day would not be able to have a tour of this building on Tuesdays, which is the day when most of my constituents prefer to visit Westminster. Denying them that opportunity would mean that they would have to come here on a Monday, when they would have to compete with commuter traffic in making the journey. That could force some constituents who can ill afford it to stay the night in London if they want to have a tour of this building. That may not be an overriding consideration, but it should be borne in mind before the House votes.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I have two points on the debate so far. First, the House today is a different place—there are an awful lot more women, and more younger people with important family commitments. Members may well have wanted to change the arrangements back then, but it is important to understand that the House is different now. Secondly, we now have a different expenses regime under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and many more Members have to get back late at night. It is difficult, particularly for women, to make these journeys at 10.30 and 11.30 at night. That is another difference between the House that made the change previously and this House.

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Lady is quite right. That is why the Procedure Committee felt it important to have this debate today to test the mood of the present Parliament on what hours it chooses to sit. On her latter point, I have always been of the view that any expenses regime should model itself to fit the hours we choose to work, and not the other way around.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chairman and his Committee for the work they have done on this issue. I would like to follow up the point about how the sitting hours affect Members with family responsibilities. I first entered the House when I had a seven-year-old son. There is no change in the hours that could make the House more family-friendly to those whose children are hundreds of miles away. If we are to debate this issue, we should do so on the correct grounds. It is often said that a change in the hours is more family-friendly, but that is true only to those whose families live near the House.

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Lady makes her point very well indeed.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of tourism here. It is important for our constituents to visit the House, but I think that his point about the expenses regime also applies to tourism—in other words, we should facilitate tourism around the hours the House sits. To address the problem he raised, perhaps we could look at other options, such as providing greater facilities at the weekend, which would be much more convenient for many of our constituents.

[Mr Knight]

That is one option, but I have to say that my constituents prefer me to give them a guided tour, and I prefer to give them a guided tour rather than putting them into the hands of others.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Following up the important intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for those fortunate enough to bring up their children in inner London, as I was, notwithstanding the fact that I have a constituency 225 miles away, there is no rule to say that a 7 o’clock finish on a Tuesday is more “family-friendly” than one at 10 o’clock? As I know for certain, having talked to younger Members today, it varies greatly according to the family circumstances. No one should presume to speak for those Members—men or women—who happen to have young children about what is “best for them”.

[Mr Knight]

And of course it depends on the whipping that is in force on any particular day as well. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is making an extremely good speech and balancing all the different factors. He says that “it depends on the whipping”, but I am sure that he will accept that often on a Tuesday night, when there is no Whip and Members are not engaged with a debate, one still finds Members in their offices until 9, 10, 11 o’clock at night—even when no votes are taking place and there is no engagement in the Chamber. That is the reality of this place.

[Mr Knight]

That is certainly true; I think we are all aware of that. It may not be a matter of any moment for Opposition Members, but, if the House were to decide to sit earlier on a Tuesday, it would in effect scupper many ministerial visits to different parts of the country during the daytime. Opposition Members might not be bothered about that now, but there might come a time when it does matter to them.

To return to the process, if the Tuesday motion on retaining the status quo falls, I understand that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) will then move motion 4, which I have also signed, recommending that our sitting hours on a Tuesday change to mirror those currently in force on a Wednesday.

I understand also that if the right hon. Lady is successful and the motion is passed, she might also move motion 9, at the end of this business on the Order Paper, recommending that private Members’ Bills be taken on a Tuesday evening after 7 pm. I have considerable sympathy for the House looking at whether we move the time for debate on private Members’ Bills, but, if her motion becomes eligible to move, I ask her again to reflect on not doing so—for five reasons.

The Procedure Committee has resolved to undertake a full report into private Members’ Bills and the procedure relating thereto. I have also been to see the Leader of the House, because it is important that the House, at an early date, decides whether it wishes private Members’ Bills to continue on a Friday or to move to another day of the week—not necessarily a Tuesday.

I am pleased to say that the Leader of the House accepted the strength of the necessity for an early decision on the matter, and he made it clear to me that he intends to provide time for the Backbench Business Committee, either in the September spill-over or shortly thereafter, when I hope that the Committee will allocate a debate for that purpose. So we have had a promise of time to debate the question of when we deal with private Members’ Bills, and it should be a wider one than just, say, moving them from Friday to Tuesday; the House should debate whether to take such Bills on a Wednesday—perhaps even a Thursday might be an option—or keep them where they are on a Friday.

There are consequences of just moving such Bills from a Friday to a Tuesday, not least that such business will be more likely to attract a payroll Whip if the Government of the day find it unpalatable.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman indicates that the payroll vote may become a factor in any consideration of private Members’ Bills, but it would apply whenever such Bills were debated, and there are of course other mechanisms that Governments use to talk them out on a Friday. Specifically, will his thinking encompass running such Bills parallel to the sittings of the Chamber, or are we talking solely about putting them on at the end of regular business?

[Mr Knight]

As the Procedure Committee has only just resolved to look into the matter, I would not want to cut off any avenue of discussion. I think that it will be happy to look at both suggestions—[Interruption.]

I know that one other aspect of the matter which the Committee wants to look at is the steps that we take to reduce the likelihood of just two or three Members completely destroying a Bill that has the support of many. There are various ways of doing so, one of which is to put the Question on a private Member’s Bill’s Second Reading after a certain amount of time has elapsed, rather than Members having to get 100 people here to vote in the affirmative.

So we are seeking to be helpful; we have been promised an early debate about the matter; and on that basis I hope that the House will be prepared to wait until September for a wide-ranging debate about private Members’ Bills and where we allocate them within our sittings, rather than accept motion 9 today. I thought that someone else was seeking to intervene.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend made my point for me.

[Mr Knight]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Apparently I made his point for him.

The short delay between today and September or the first week in October is not long enough to delay the implementation of any recommendation that we bring forward. Nothing will be lost by waiting, so I hope that on reflection the right hon. Lady will decide not to move motion 9 if it becomes possible for her to do so.

Motion 5 is to retain the status quo on Wednesdays, and again I shall move it at the appropriate time. Similarly, if it is passed no further proposals will deal with Wednesday and the remaining Wednesday motion will fall. If the Wednesday motion on retaining the status quo fails, I will move motion 6, which recommends that our sitting hours on that day change to mirror those currently in place on a Thursday, namely 10.30 am until 6 pm.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

If we move sitting times on a Wednesday, my concern, which applies to Tuesday as well, is that we will curtail the time that Members have to arrange meetings with constituents and others in this place. It is very tricky to organise meetings when the House is sitting; I have had to cancel two appointments this afternoon to take part in this debate. So I have great concerns about contracting the time that Members have available to meet constituents and others.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I assume that those concerns will lead him to vote for the status quo when the time comes.

Motion 7 is to bring Thursday sittings forward by one hour so that the House sits from 9.30 am until 5 pm, rather than from 10.30 am until 6 pm. Any Member who wishes to see the status quo retained should vote against the motion.

[Mr Gray]

I am a member of the Procedure Committee and, therefore, I signed up to the report, which was of course unanimous, but since we produced it a number of people who live, for example, in Milton Keynes and similar places have brought to my attention the fact that, to get here by 9.30 am, it would be necessary to catch peak time trains, and that, given the strictures on our expenses, that might not be so good and, in order to accommodate them, might be a reason for leaving things at 10.30 am.

[Mr Knight]

Again, my hon. Friend, who is a very valued member of the Committee, has put forward an argument for certain Members voting for the status quo.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

This is probably the best laid out Order Paper that we have had for any such debate, as far as making things clear goes, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on how he has set out the options—so that people understand them and know what they are voting for. I may have missed this earlier, but if people vote for any new hours when will they be implemented?

[Mr Knight]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his intervention. This way of proceeding was not without controversy, but I am pleased that he feels, as I do, that it is the best way of doing so. I am obliged to the Government and to the Backbench Business Committee, and the reason we are having this debate today—as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected by the Deputy Leader of the House—and, in effect, debating sitting hours ahead of some of the other recommendations in the Committee’s report is that if the House votes for any change, the Government and the House authorities will be able to put the necessary changes in place for when we return in October.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), does my right hon. Friend not agree that, on sitting hours, we should set ourselves up so that the Chamber and the House work and we do our jobs in the most effective way, and that, although the point about whether someone travels at peak time is an interesting one, it should be a secondary consideration?

[Mr Knight]

That too is an interesting point, but I believe that it is for individuals to decide at what time of day they consider themselves to work most effectively, and that is why I have hesitated to tell the House in which direction it should go today. I think that this is a matter for the House itself: I think it right for this Parliament, elected in 2010, to make its decision—a decision with which the majority are happy—and we know that that will happen in less than two hours’ time.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Knight]

I have already given way a number of times, but I shall continue to do so, as I see that two of my hon. Friends wish to intervene.

[Mr Burley]

My right hon. Friend said that the House should reflect on what is the optimal time of day for Members to work, and I think that that goes to the heart of the debate. Does he accept that for many new Members such as me—those of us who arrived in the House two years ago—10 pm is not the optimal hour of the day at which to work? Back in the real world, the optimal working hours are from nine in the morning, when people are fresh, until about 6 pm.

[Mr Knight]

I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend. I am Knight by name, night by nature. Perhaps I have hung around with too many musicians, but I tend to like working during the evening.

[Philip Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of work to be done that can easily see us through until 10 pm? I am not entirely sure why Members should have nothing to do after 6 pm, given all their constituency work. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what we are being asked to do is choose between the competing claims of Select Committees, the House and Westminster Hall? At present there is plenty of time for Members to participate in all three, but a change in our hours would not allow that to continue.

[Mr Knight]

As I said at the outset, any change will have consequences. My hon. Friend has correctly identified one of those consequences, namely the clash with Committee sittings on Tuesday mornings.

Let me now, for the benefit of all Members, say something about the mechanics of the voting that will take place later. I have had a discussion with the Patronage Secretary, the Chief Whip, and because there is to be a genuine free vote for Government Members and also, I trust, for Opposition Members, and because there are differences of opinion in the Government Whips Office, he has agreed that the Government Whips will act as Tellers on motions 1 to 7. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) will therefore not need Tellers for the vote on her motion to change Tuesday sittings, although if she wishes to push her later amendment, she will need Tellers for that. The Government have taken a view on September sittings, and if any Member chooses to divide the House on my motion on the subject, Tellers will also be needed then. I hope that that is helpful to all Members.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Committee on an excellent report which is thorough and very readable, and which makes some sensible recommendations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if, at the appropriate time, a majority voted against September sittings, it would be disastrous for the reputation of the House? It is quite wrong, and always has been, for the House not to sit for 10 continuous weeks, and I hope that when the motions recommended in motion 8 are put to the House, it will vote overwhelmingly in favour of continuing the September sittings.

[Mr Knight]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I must tell him that the evidence that the Committee received from Members was rather mixed. There was little, if any, enthusiasm for September sittings. Many Members felt that little of substance was achieved during those two-week periods, and that any presentational benefit was outweighed by the financial costs of setting up the House so that Members could be brought back for just eight or nine sitting days before the conference recess. Many also regretted the loss of opportunities for constituency work in September, particularly visits to schools.

However, the view in other quarters—including, I believe, the Government—rather reflected that of the hon. Gentleman, namely that any move to return to the long summer recess would be very difficult in presentational terms, and would also create a long period during which the House would be unable effectively to fulfil its task of scrutinising the Government and holding Ministers to account. Indeed, that may well be the view of the official Opposition.

[Mr Straw]

Under a Labour Government, when we were operating the old system of no September sittings, the House had to be recalled on three occasions. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cost and disruption involved in recalling Members from their holidays, and the disruption of works in this building, far outweighs the cost of programmed, regular September sittings?

[Mr Knight]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, I should add that the Clerk of the House has estimated that the additional cost of September sittings is some £1.5 million, mainly from the capital budget. That cost arises from the need to manage some projects within the tighter timetable that results from the breaking up of the long summer recess. Costs will of course vary from year to year. The key factor for the Parliamentary Estates Directorate is certainty about the parliamentary calendar to allow for effective planning. One reason for the Committee’s wish for the matter to be decided today, either way, is that at least it will bring certainty to 2013 and beyond.

The House has not had an opportunity since the general election to debate the question of whether September sittings should become the norm. We have had two years of September sittings since the election, and we think that the time is now ripe for all Members to judge the desirability of such sittings. The House has already agreed to a motion providing for a sitting in September 2012, and today we have an opportunity to decide whether we should sit in September from 2013 onwards. I have proposed that we sit in September, and any Member who opposes September sittings should divide the House and vote against motion 8.

We all have our own views on the sitting hours that we personally prefer. Today the Procedure Committee, above all else, wants the House of Commons, in the present Parliament, to have an opportunity to decide its own sitting hours. I hope that the motions that I have tabled will enable that to be achieved simply and with the minimum of fuss.