Business of the House
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) referred to the issue of foreign state ownership and purchase, and the freedom of the press. I have to say that there have been plenty of times when I have certainly not liked what the press has written about me, or, indeed, about my party or other aspects. However, this does matter for the press—unlike for other industries, where I think it is perfectly valid for there to be ownership or part-ownership by foreign states, and in the past we have encouraged that, going both ways. I think it is vital, if the Government do not have the powers they think they need or are relying on some aspect of some other competition authority, that we put something in place to make sure that the freedom of the press is preserved forever. In particular, I am thinking right now of The Telegraph and The Spectator.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I am pleased that she has got that on record. A free press, whether nationally or at local level, is a fundamental part of our democracy. If we lose that, we will lose a very great thing that our democracy leans upon. It should be protected. I think hon. and right hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about this matter, and I will make sure that the Government have heard.
Business of the House
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady has put her views on the record and I thank her for that. As I have said, I am sympathetic to the SNP being given additional time. She will understand that I will announce further business in the usual way, but I am very happy to speak to the leader of her party group.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). People are intimidated every day on the streets of this country. Having heard the heartfelt words of Mr Speaker yesterday, it is clear that he is worried about the intimidation of people in this place. We are reminded by the plaques of the people who have been murdered off the estate and on the estate. We walk into this Chamber under the shadow of world war two, when this Chamber was bombed by people who wanted to stop this Parliament sitting; the entrance to the Chamber is still there to remind us of that. The only time we went through the Lobbies yesterday was on my ten-minute rule Bill. It still surprises me that the Labour party encouraged Members to vote down a Bill that would have helped community transport and disability transport operators—I still find that astonishing.
To return to formal business, the “Draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain” was laid yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is supposed to be subject to an affirmative resolution. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that I have been concerned about our not being able to debate national policy statements. I would be grateful if she could find time for a debate on this, given that it is subject to an affirmative resolution.
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly raise my right hon. Friend’s latter point with the relevant Department and make sure that it has heard what she has said today. On her former point, it is absolutely right that we do all we can to protect Members of Parliament. It is absolutely right that we hold to account those who seek to intimidate or threaten individuals, elected Members of Parliament and those holding local government office, and that they face the full force of the law. However, we cannot adapt our processes and procedures in this place to not have difficult debates. We have to be able to debate difficult issues. We have to stand up for our constituents and make the judgments that we think are right. If we are adapting the procedures of this House because we are fearful of the consequences of standing up and saying what we think is right, then democracy has failed and the extremists have won. We must never do that and, as long as I am Leader of the House of Commons, that will never happen.
Business of the House
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I learn something new every session. I shall have to investigate the first half of his question, but he is absolutely right to raise the plight of tenants who either are in unsuitable accommodation or are being exploited by their landlords. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has done an enormous amount of work on that issue, both on building quality and ensuring that tenants are protected, and I shall ensure that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Energy national policy statements have a significant impact on my constituents. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend’s officials and her Parliamentary Private Secretary for finding some information in advance; I know that the statements were laid before Parliament on 22 November, and it was then declared in a written ministerial statement that they had been approved by Parliament. Although I have returned to the Back Benches after many years, I remember that the Government in the past laid a resolution before the House, and I participated in that debate on 18 July 2011. I do not believe we have had a debate on these particular statements, so I would be grateful, even if we have gone past the legal deadline, if my right hon. Friend found time for one.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that question. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero made a written ministerial statement on 22 November presenting the five revised energy national policy statements for parliamentary approval. She deposited copies of all those documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and they were available on gov.uk. She also sent a letter to all hon. Members on 9 January highlighting the scrutiny period of the NPS. Following the expiry period of 21 days, no objections were received, and the Secretary of State designated them on 17 January. I fully appreciate that while all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s crossed, my right hon. Friend and other Members may feel they have not had the chance to discuss or offer their opinions on them. She knows how to apply for a debate, but I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns.
Business of the House
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, would take a dim view of it if I refused to answer the hon. Lady’s question—if I just stood here in silence because I did not fancy doing it, or objected strongly to the content and tone of the question. Had I done that, you might ask why I showed up this morning if I was not prepared to do my duty in this House and to show respect to the House. It would be a bit like attending at the Cenotaph and not singing the national anthem.
The hon. Lady displays a distinct lack of self-awareness. I grow tired of reading out to her each week statistics on the performance of her own Government, but since she invites me to again, let me give her two statistics that address the issues she raises. In England, the NHS 18-month waiting lists are down by 94% since September 2021; and a doctor or a headteacher in Scotland pays approximately £2,000 more in tax. I will continue to do my duty to this House, and to remind the SNP of their appalling record in government, which is obvious to everyone except them.
Finally, on all sorts of issues that many would perhaps describe as “woke” this Government have a proud record, because we recognise that compassion and care for everyone in our society is very important. That is why we did the largest ever LGBT action plan, from which we wanted practical measures that would make a difference to people’s lives. Conservatism, to me, has always been about the practical impact that we have on people’s lives, and stepping up and taking responsibility, not just for ourselves but for other people. Given her background and life experiences, I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who will now sit at the Cabinet Table, will be very good in that role.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Transitioning toward net zero and increasing renewable energy is critical, but we need a just transition. I am conscious that constituents in Suffolk Coastal feel that a lot of the onshore infrastructure is being put in an unsuitable place, when further down the coast, at Bradwell in Essex, there is an ideal brownfield site to accommodate it. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate—perhaps it could be the general debate next Thursday, which is yet to be announced—in which we could discuss the importance of rewiring the national grid?
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I place on the record—on behalf of everyone in this place, I am sure—our thanks to my right hon. Friend for all the work she did in her former Department? I know she was incredibly passionate about that work, going right back to when she was a junior Minister in that Department, and she should be very proud of the many things she enabled to happen on her double watch. I thank her for raising this issue in her constituency, which I know she is very concerned about. The Secretary of State has made it a priority and is giving it a lot more attention and focus, and I shall make sure that she is aware of my right hon. Friend’s particular interest.
MPs Staff: Employment Conditions
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Having been a member of the Conference, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. The Conference has done some important work. We all know that this is a highly individual workplace, and that brings pressures, close and intense working, and a daily range of issues that are varied and challenging. We all know of personnel cases where things have gone wrong, so it was a very good idea to create the Speaker’s Conference, and all its members set off on our work knowing there was a problem to solve: that the working conditions of our teams, Members’ staff, could and must be improved.
We have had a very good process, and I thank the House staff for all that they did. In particular, I thank them for their research and for drawing interesting parallels between other Parliaments around the world. It is clear that some of these Parliaments have been on similar journeys to ourselves. It is hard enough to organise things on a national parliamentary basis, but to do so on an international parliamentary basis is particularly challenging.
I think back to a joint meeting with representatives from the Bundestag. The organisation was good: we had to fit in with multiple participants, co-ordinate between sittings and ensure good translation services. I know more about that meeting because I chaired it, but there were many other meetings as well. The way in which House Officers carried out their background research was particularly helpful. For example, there was a visit to my constituency office—among a number of other such visits—to see what happens in the more distant part of the parliamentary estate. We had a visit from the Director of Members’ Services, Mr Chris Sear. When he joined us in Harrogate, I made myself scarce by visiting some constituents, so he could talk to the team and find out what they were doing and all that they do to support people on a daily basis.
Throughout this process, I was aware that there had been some difficulty with gathering information. There was plenty of anecdotal information, but problems have been hard to quantify. That difficulty with information meant that, to keep perspective and proportionality in all that we did, we had to constantly remind those involved that the vast majority of MPs are good employers.
There was a focus on three areas: culture, community and behaviour. I will comment, if I may, on a couple of the more important decisions. The first was to keep MPs as employers of their teams and as the deciders of who is in their team. That is a very good thing. Any changes to that would have been difficult to implement and would, I am sure, have met significant resistance. It also became clear very quickly that the way that support is provided or accessed by Members’ staff is slightly haphazard, and that that could be improved.
Members’ staff can sometimes feel like second-class citizens—for example, when everyone else on the parliamentary estate are eligible for a flu jab, they are not. Listing Members’ staff as expenses is demeaning; they are not expenses, they do valuable work. Members’ staff could join parliamentary networks.
The transfer of employment rights for staff when they change from working for one MP to another is critical. Effectively, a member of staff has to start all over again when a Member retires or loses their seat, or when a constituency boundary is abolished. That member of staff may have worked here for many years, but they would not have any employment rights. Clearly, that is wrong. As a result of the Conference, that will change, and that transfer of rights was a very early decision.
A further point is the Member Services Team, with a recommendation for significantly greater HR support. Basically, this is about moving everything to a far more professional and standard working arrangement. One area where more is to be done concerns those who are working away from the estate. It is hard to see what is going on in constituency offices—there are 650 or so in diverse locations around our nation—and I was sure that further work was needed. The parliamentary authorities should work together, alongside the political parties, to identify early where risk may be developing—for example, staff turnover rates could be considered, or basic personnel admin, such as leave records.
During the Conference’s work, we spent some time discussing the structure of MPs’ offices—possibly because I spent a large amount of time ensuring that we did so. Some are better than others, but how a colleague sets up their office is their business, not mine.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Both he and I are pretty experienced in the private sector in managing people; not everyone has that experience, but I believe that the HR services available to Members are excellent. Will he consider in a future Conference making it a requirement that Members undertake an HR exercise before they are allowed to recruit staff, who will be paid for by the taxpayer?
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. The challenge is that when a Member starts here, the work starts immediately, and the period between an election and the workload starting is very brief. What she suggests could be practically difficult, but she is quite correct about possible lack of experience and how standard practices, although they may be difficult to deliver, are clearly the right thing to do. My right hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, which should be considered, because I do not think that this is the end of the process.
Members structure their officers differently. All my team have always been based in Harrogate and Knaresborough; I have never had a team member based in Westminster. London MPs have different needs, probably basing their teams on the parliamentary estate. Most Members will split their teams. A result of our work will be the creation of a series of templates to show new Members what success might look like—not to impose, but to guide—and the provision of more training when they arrive and are setting up their offices.
The absence of imposition is important, because we are all individuals with different needs and different backgrounds, so the political parties have a role to play in the training of new MPs, some of whom as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) says, may have very limited experience, or even none, of being an employer. It is true that this is an individual workplace, but that has sometimes been used as an excuse for not looking hard enough at what happens here, or as a get-out-of-jail card for poor practice. That is not acceptable. We have a set of recommendations; we worked to make sure that they are practical, and there are many of them.
It was a great call by Mr Speaker to create the Conference. I again thank the House team for all their work to support us; they did a very good job. I can confirm to colleagues that, throughout, the Conference’s work was done in a constructive, collegiate, cross-party way. Our task now is to implement the findings of the Conference, but I do not think that this work, while positive, should be the only part of an initiative to improve standards in our public life and politics.
Since I became a Member of Parliament, eight current or former Labour MPs have been given custodial sentences, two Conservatives, one Liberal Democrat and one Scottish Nationalist. We have had by-elections caused by poor behaviour by colleagues from all parts of the House, and there have been cases of bad practice. A series of processes have been introduced in good faith to address problems, but I think it has become apparent that the House needs to do more work to both simplify and speed up the processes. Who is responsible for what? What happens when people are being investigated, and how does that work align with the Recall of MPs Act 2015? It is also for the political parties to recognise problems and act, though.
It is easy to say, “The other lot are corrupt.” We hear that all the time. My point is that the problems are wider and deeper. That is a broader issue than the Speaker’s Conference dealt with. I think our work in this Conference will improve a sizeable part of our political system. It should be supported and implemented as soon as possible.