Speaker’s Statement

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am quite clear that there was the opportunity for three votes.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

That’s not true.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman may not know of all the discussions. I was very clear that there was the opportunity for three votes.

I will take one more point of order.

Business of the House

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, I thank the hon. Lady for the sentiments she expressed about the rescue operation taking place as we speak. I was proud to say the naval prayer at the armed forces flag-raising ceremony that many Members attended. She is right to point out the dangers of crossings on the Mediterranean and right to refer to that appalling situation. Clearly, investigations are ongoing with regard to the coastguards’ activities. I remind Members that it was in a similar incident a few years ago that more people were lost in one night crossing the Mediterranean than were lost on the Titanic. That is why we must use every means at our disposal to stop people-trafficking operations and ensure we have a refugee and asylum system—not just in the UK, but a global set of rules—that enables us to direct finite financial resources to help those most in need and to take people who are lingering as we speak in refugee camps and other places, rather than one that encourages people to make dangerous crossings and puts funds in the way of people-trafficking organisations. I would just stress that to her.

We speak about many topics and matters, but we sometimes forget the personal impact on individuals of the polices our Governments make. One individual this week, Fergus from Inverness who worked in the legal profession for many years and will shortly be drawing his pension, is really dismayed at what is happening in Scotland. He is against the deposit return scheme and wants someone to come and sort that out; he is against the ill- thought-out marine protected areas; he is against the SNP’s transition from oil and gas; and he is against the SNP riding roughshod over UK equality Acts. What would be the hon. Lady’s advice to Fergus? What would she suggest to him, given that Fergus is an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament who this week voted to support a motion of no confidence in his own Government’s co-leader? I have some advice for Fergus: fill out an application form to join the Conservative party and hand it to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who is standing up for his country- men and his nation.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

First Bus, without any warning or consultation, recently announced major changes to bus services in Newcastle-under-Lyme, including, most significantly, the withdrawal of the No. 4 service to Audley and Wood Lane from 2 July—in less than a fortnight’s time—which will mean that people will not be able to get to work or college. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is not appropriate for bus companies to do that after so little consultation with local residents? I am grateful to the interim managing director for agreeing to meet me tomorrow, but may we have a debate about the way bus companies do such things with so little warning and consultation with local residents?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up for his local community. Whatever changes and adaptations are made to services, they need to be done in consultation with residents. If that has not happened, there needs to be a pause to enable that to happen. These are incredibly important services and that is why we have been backing local bus services with a further £300 million over the next two years, which includes £140 million to combat any indications of reductions in service.

Business of the House

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman will know that three of the Prime Minister’s five priorities are focused on the economy and on enabling precisely the individuals he speaks about to be in a much better situation later this year. I shall certainly ensure that the Treasury has heard what he has said. He will know that the next Treasury questions are on 20 June.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

This year, the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme celebrates its 850th anniversary. It is dated to the granting of our royal charter by Henry II in 1173. Sadly, that charter has been lost in the mists of time, but undeterred we have a full year of celebrations, including, on 3 June at Brampton Museum, an unveiling of a re-creation of that charter by Mr Glenn James, a renowned local illustrator. Will the Leader of the House praise Mr James for his efforts, and the leader of the council, Councillor Simon Tagg, and our new mayor, Councillor Simon White, for the work that they have done to put the celebrations together? Does she agree that a debate in this Chamber, perhaps an Adjournment debate, would be a fitting tribute to our history and longevity?

[Penny Mordaunt]

It is incredibly important for our communities that we celebrate important anniversaries, and I congratulate all who are working to make Newcastle-under-Lyme’s 850th anniversary so very special. I am sure the whole House would want to congratulate Mayor White, Councillor Tagg and Mr James on the part they are playing.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman’s decision-making process, but I note considerable dissent in various parts of the House.

Concluding that an existing structure and process had delivered an undesirable outcome, the Government seem to have believed that the structure and the outcome must be at fault, not the person involved, and decided to change the process when it was nearly complete to try to get a different outcome. I am afraid that that is the backdrop. The resulting vote caused chaos.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

My recollection of that vote is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), as the hon. Lady may realise. What the Government are doing today is incredibly well intentioned and I would ask her to tone down the political tone, because we are all going to make our own decisions on the motion. The Leader of the House is trying to find a way forward, with the complications she has spoken about with regard to Whitehall and the principles of public life. I had some real concerns with what the Committee was putting forward and I will be voting with the Government tonight, despite the fact that I voted against them in that vote back in 2021.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do support the motion—I will vote for the motion, should there be a Division. I will also vote for the amendments tabled by the Committee, and I will come on to the reasons why shortly. I just want to make sure we are clear about the backdrop. A Government did ask their MPs to support the indefensible and to vote for what appeared to be nonsense.

The farce, unfortunately, continued the very next day. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset undermined himself still further by reversing the impact of the amendment, which had passed thanks to his Government’s own urging. I will not go over that in detail, but it is worth noting that it created a mess in the middle of the ongoing process. It meant that an MP then resigned rather than working with the system of standards, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, with the good intention of attempting to strengthen and improve the system.

By this point, the Committee on Standards had already begun its work and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had announced her review of the code of conduct to complement the Committee’s activities. I am glad the Government have brought forward some of the Committee’s recommendations. It is already Labour policy that MPs should not be paid parliamentary lobbyists or consultants on how to get better access to Parliament and Government. Where MPs do have an outside job, it is right that strict protocols are followed, so I welcome the measure that will require them to have a written contract making it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers. I am glad that has Government support. A Labour Government would go further and ban second jobs altogether, with limited exceptions.

I note the commendable work of the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, who conducted the independent review into the system. The Committee made good use of his extensive experience and reflections on the very important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. Unfortunately, some Members, in their attempts to defend their friend—an urge I completely understand; to defend one’s friends is a good quality—attacked the system on the grounds of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. They were exposed further on when Sir Ernest Ryder concluded that the present inquisitorial procedure for standards inquiries is fair and complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, or the right to a fair trial. He made further recommendations, including introducing a more formal appeal stage to the process, while noting that the existing standards process contained such a right, but that it was not clearly identified. I welcome both his and the Committee’s recommendations.

However, the Government have ditched some key reforms. I note what the Leader of the House says, and I do not doubt that her intentions are honourable. I am glad to hear her say that more things are coming. I think she will recognise, however, that I am growing rather weary of hearing the word “soon”. That does not just come from her—she is not the only one. In fact, I do not think she did say “soon” this evening. But if it is not soon, then when? The Government have had the recommendations for some months. Given the backdrop I have outlined, on what basis does the Leader of the House think there is a moral basis for picking and choosing which of the standards they will accept and which ones to ditch? They appear to be ignoring that backdrop.

The first specific issue I want to mention is the register of ministerial interests and the measures, which have been raised briefly already, requiring Ministers to register gifts and hospitality in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The history is fascinating. A 1993 report from the Select Committee on Members’ Interests stated that Ministers were required to register benefits they received in just the same way as other Members, even if it was in a ministerial capacity. Subsequently, the 1997 ministerial code provided that Ministers should register hospitality in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was

“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action”.

The 2007 ministerial code went even further, providing that Ministers should register hospitality with both the permanent secretary in their Department and the House.

Only in 2010 did the ministerial code completely separate the registering of ministerial and Member interests. It is worth noting that there was a change of Government that year, and it feels to me as though the subsequent amendment in 2015, with the then Government introducing the provision that

“Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”

was a step backwards. I would like us to have transparency, with Ministers registering all hospitality above a certain agreed level with the House so that there is parity with Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will explain in more detail. However, I feel this is an opportunity for the Leader of the House just to reconsider. Will she do so? The Government have had months to respond to these proposals, and I am really disappointed to see them thus weakened.

My second criticism is about the examples of the principles of public life. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the House referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, so she must know that the chair of the committee said in oral evidence to the Committee:

“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”

Are we not a particular institution or organisation? We are. He also pointed out that

“the civil service code…takes the same sort of direction…but identifies specific priorities and principles that are relevant to the civil service”,

so why not Parliament?

Does the Leader of the House agree that MPs should not misuse our position to gain financial or other material benefit? If so, the Government should not be nervous of making the principles of public life specific to our profession, as the Committee has recommended. In particular, I wonder about the weakening of the example given by the Committee on leadership. What, I ask, have the Government got against the recommendation that Members

“should actively promote and robustly support the principles, abide by the Parliamentary Behaviour Code”,

and what have they got against the recommendation that we

“should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute”?

Surely that is something the Government should support.

The other part of the backdrop is the loss of two independent ethics advisers in a matter of months. I will not take up too much of the House’s time on this point, but I do want the right hon. Lady the Leader of the House to convey to the rest of the Government our dismay that, week after week, when I or my colleagues ask when we are going to get an ethics adviser, the answer is always “soon”. I am sure the right hon. Lady wants to give us something clearer than “soon” soon.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Prime Minister is not under a desk, as the hon. Lady suggests. I can assure the House that, with regret, she is not here for a very good reason. Neither has she taken this decision to win the hon. Lady’s gratitude; she has done it out of a sense of duty, because she knows what is in the national interest.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend has said, this will have been a difficult decision for the Prime Minister, both politically and personally because of her loyalty of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). However, it is vital that we provide economic stability for the families and businesses in constituencies like mine and across the country. We have already seen that this morning from the Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time the House heard from the Chancellor about how we are going to provide that stability?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes.

Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Like everyone, I think, I am very pleased to be speaking in the Sir David Amess debate. We were both regular contributors to whingeing gits afternoons before each recess—that is the name that we used to refer to these debates. Although we were regulars—the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referred to this—I might get in, like the right hon. Gentleman, four or five issues, David would get well into double figures. If I tried to match his batting average, we would probably still be sat here on 5 September when Parliament returns. He was brilliant. He was also one of my neighbours at one time as well.

I want to mention one or two local issues. The first is the planned rebuild of Whipps Cross Hospital in my constituency. This has been promised for some years. It was one of those announced by the Prime Minister some time ago, but the finance has not come through from the Treasury. There has been no explanation for this. The demolition of some of the buildings at Whipps Cross has already commenced, so, as Members can imagine, Barts NHS Health Trust is in a fairly tricky situation.

Let me move on now to the actual plans, which have been in place for some time, but, hopefully, will be changed. I support the construction of a new hospital, but the original plans set out that the number of beds will be cut by 50. In the light of covid, the idea that we can cut hospital bed numbers, which has always been questionable, today seems to be barking mad. The trust has given a very vague undertaking that the bed numbers will be maintained at the level they are at now, but, as I say, that has been very vague and very carefully worded, and I will hold the trust to it.

There is also the plan to break up the Margaret Centre at the hospital, which is an end-of life care centre and is one of the best in the country—I think I can say that with some confidence. I have had emails and letters from people whose relatives have died in the Margaret Centre, all of them praising it, and now the plan is to break up that centre. It will fail. It will backfire. The trust needs to address it now and reverse that decision as soon as possible.

The second issue is that of overflying, which is a big issue in my constituency and for many others in east and south London. The planes that I am talking about go to and from City of London airport. The overflying has been an issue, I think, since the time I was elected, or very soon after. It started to be raised with me, and I then raised it with successive Mayors of London and with Government Ministers. Now City of London airport wants to increase the number of planes flying over east London from 6.5 million to 9 million. That is a huge increase. It involves getting rid of the present curfew, so there will be flights on Saturday afternoons and evenings and an increase in flights in the early morning and late evening. That will make life difficult for the people I represent, but there is also a question, which we are all talking about, of whether, particularly after the extreme weather that we have witnessed recently, we can just keep sticking more and more planes up in the sky, spreading toxic fumes over the country. That has to be, at very best, deeply questionable.

The next issue is not actually a constituency matter. I was the MP for Hornchurch until 2005 when I was ejected—I am not bitter or anything. In my then constituency was the village of Wennington. Members will have all read in the news about the fire that raged through Wennington. I have very happy memories of Wennington and my heart goes out to the people who live there.

My successor in Hornchurch was James Brokenshire. I know that if James were alive today he would be talking about Wennington as well, even though the constituency of Hornchurch was broken up by the Boundary Commission, so James was the last MP for Hornchurch. The MP now is my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas). I know that he has been run ragged by dealing with the after-effects of the fire and by the fire in Dagenham as well.

The last issue I want to raise is, again, not a constituency matter, but it is something that should really affect us all. I am talking about the grooming gangs in Telford, which have been across the news in the past few days and weeks. We have had cases all over the country. This happens again and again. It is the same pattern: a case is raised, ignored, raised, ignored and, eventually, there is an investigation. That leads to people being jailed, but we have years of rape, abuse, sexual exploitation of young girls and it not being addressed. I am bringing this up now because I want to pay tribute to the first person who raised this, which was more than 20 years ago, and that was my mum. She was the MP for Keighley at the time, and she discovered that this was going on because seven women walked into her advice surgery and started talking about it; their daughters were the victims. Again, there was the usual pattern: she raised it with social services and the police and was ignored, ignored, ignored. She then went public and, to their—hopefully—eternal shame, certain figures in the Labour party attacked her for being a racist. Although a number of figures did not support her, one did: the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for the point that he is making. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) is still dealing with some of these issues today. What the mum of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) did back then is so important—thank you very much.

[John Cryer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was going to mention the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because I have talked to him about this issue, and it is very much in his mind. He has raised it again and again, as have many MPs, but I wanted to pay tribute to my mum because she happens to have been one of the first people who raised it.

David Blunkett is owed our eternal gratitude, because he ensured that the law was changed so that six men could be sent to prison for crimes of rape, exploitation and underage sex. I suspect that if it were not for David, who is now in another place, that court case could have collapsed, as could future court cases. I will not name any of the people responsible, but the people—sadly, from my party—who lined up to attack my mum and smear her as a racist and for doing the British National party’s job for it should hang their heads in shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), and an honour to be participating in the first Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. This is a very fitting tribute indeed for a great champion and an enthusiast for the format. He was someone to whom service of his constituents, his party and his country was of the utmost importance. There is so much inspiration for us newer Members in his example. I welcome his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), to her place today. I also welcome five other Members who have joined us since last summer. A few of them came in on the back of by-elections that were quite painful for my party, but it is important that we remember the people who sent us here, and by-elections are a way to do that, and perhaps they have given this party a wake-up call over the past year as well.

I have spent the past few weeks trying to argue for a clean start in Government, but I think we also need a clean start in Parliament when we come back. When we come back, we will have a new Prime Minister, and that is an opportunity for us all to reflect on the way that we conduct ourselves in this Chamber and in the estate more widely. I have come to feel that Parliament is perhaps suffering from a bout of long covid of its own—some bad habits that are antithetical to the good working of this place as well as contrary to some long- standing culture and practice. Some of these things have taken hold and are not serving ourselves, our constituents or the reputation of this House well.

If I have the time, I want to cover four particular points: the debate itself; the tone in which we speak to each other; standards; and the culture around the estate. Some of it is a hangover literally from covid. The new intake of 2019 participated in debates where there was no back and forth. We were basically recording clips from the comfort of our own living rooms. The May 2020 report of the Procedure Committee, on which I now sit but did not at the time of the report, said that

“debates have become recitals of prepared texts rather than lively exchanges of view.”

I wholeheartedly concur, and I fear that this tendency has been slower to depart than some of the other arrangements that we had during covid.

Although it is of course vital that our constituents can see what we do here, I do not think that it is necessarily wise that what we do here is simply for our constituents to see—whether it is on our Facebook pages or on Twitter, the echo chamber for the retweets and likes. I will, of course, concede that today’s debate is a noble exception and that we should all go for it in the way that Sir David used to do. But that is not really what we are here for. We are legislators. We are here to scrutinise legislation. We are here to hold the Government to account, whether we are supporters of the Government or members of the Opposition. We are not here to make viral clips only tangentially related to the legislation that we are supposed to be considering. I think that all of us, including me, probably need to do a little bit better. What we need is genuine debate. We should refer to previous speakers in the debate. We should take interventions—I am willing to take one now—and we should take on and win arguments with other people.

We also need a clean start on tone in September. During the confidence debate, there were flashpoints. I do realise that the past few months have been tough and fraught, and that is just on the Conservative side of the Chamber. The temperature has literally risen over these past few days, but what we say in this place really matters. We should all remain moderate and collegiate. We should argue and disagree with each other, but in good faith and with good humour and respect. We should set an example. We heard only the other day in points of order from my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) that if that tone gets out into the country, it could be really, really damaging. It could threaten our security and it could threaten our families, so we must set an example in this place.

I will touch on standards briefly, because I made my views known on this in the debate that we had after the Owen Paterson affair. We cannot have one rule for us and another for everybody else. We must do better.

We need a clean start on estate culture. There have been exposés in the papers about staffers getting drunk and sleeping in offices, to say nothing of the behaviour of some MPs that has been well documented recently. We really must address that when we come back in September. We must have a clean start.

On the Speaker’s Commission, which is part of the solution, I am not at all convinced that the right solution is for MPs not to employ their own staff. Some may have noticed that, over the past few months, my support for the Prime Minister has been open to question. If, for example, my staff had been employed by the Conservative party, they would have faced a huge conflict of interest; they owe their job to the Conservative party, but they owe their judgment to me. Who would they be beholden to? There would be an unacceptable conflict. I have discussed this with my staff, and I know that they would have found it extremely difficult to navigate these past few months had their loyalty been split. It is not a small concern to them. They need to know who they are working for and whose interests they are employed to pursue—obviously our constituents, but ourselves as Members as well.

Moreover, that would not fundamentally solve the issue of the worst behaviour of MPs towards their staff, other Members’ staff, Clerks, House staff and so on. What we need to do is grapple with bad behaviour and stamp it out. No human resources policy in the world can mitigate some of the terrible behaviours that we have seen reported about former Members of this House.

Finally, because it is Sir David’s debate, we need a clean start in Newcastle as well. We need levelling up. We need the money coming through from the towns fund. We need to clean up the antisocial behaviour. Most of all, as I have said in this debate previously, we need to clean up that landfill at Walleys quarry. [Interruption.] We need to stop the stink—thank you very much. We need a clean start in Parliament, in Newcastle and in the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sara Britcliffe]

I have to carry on.

Floral displays are needed across all of my beautiful market towns—Great Harwood, Oswaldtwistle, Haslingden and Rishton—not just in Accrington town centre. I will spend my summer in my home of Hyndburn and Haslingden, knocking on doors and speaking to what I believe to be the best constituents in the country. I am looking forward to having that break and connecting with local voters and speaking to them about the matters that mean most to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

As Mr Deputy Speaker said earlier, it is a bit of an impossible task to try to wind up these debates. Before I begin, may I put on record my thanks to the Speaker’s Office and to everyone who works in this place, from the police officers, the security guards, the wonderful Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the unseen Committees such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, through to the catering, cleaning, Hansard and IT staff, who keep the whole parliamentary estate ticking over day in, day out. We are very grateful to them. As the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) mentioned, we are also grateful to our constituency staff and teams. That allows me to thank my team and the excellent Sarah Banwell, who won Labour caseworker of the year from Prospect this year—I wanted to give her a little mention too.

It is a pleasure to respond to today’s Adjournment debate on behalf of the shadow Leader of the House team and it is also a real honour to speak in a debate dedicated to our late colleague Sir David Amess. We all know that there is no doubt that he would have been in the Chamber today, speaking up for his beloved Southend. As a regular myself, I used to look on in awe at his contributions. He owned this debate. It was a masterclass. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) seemed to do a good job of mentioning as many issues as he did. The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) made her contribution, which Sir David Amess would have been extremely proud of. His legacy will live on both inside and outside Parliament.

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), to his place. In one of my first contributions in this role—I was a bit lonely because I had no one to shadow, so I am pleased that he has come along—I reflected on how my appearance at the Dispatch Box would give hope to late developers everywhere, and the same can be said for him. Over the years, he has forged a reputation as a stickler for parliamentary protocol, often to the chagrin of his own party, and he is no stranger to the rough and tumble of this place.

My former neighbour and friend in Newport West, the late, great Paul Flynn, enjoyed regular verbal jousts with the hon. Gentleman in this Chamber, and it is a shame that their spells on the Front Bench never coincided. The hon. Gentleman once commented that Paul was his inspiration for running for Parliament, having been a constituent of his for some years as a travel agent in Newport. With characteristic good humour, Paul noted that he would carry for life the burden of being responsible for the hon. Gentleman’s parliamentary career, so I am sure he would be delighted to see his unlikely protégé elevated to his new place on the Front Bench today. Some would say that the Deputy Leader of the House must be a glutton for punishment to step into the role with a Government who are crumbling all around him, but that is nothing new to him—after all, he once stood as the Conservative candidate in Islwyn, where Tory voters are a rarer breed than costed policies from his party leadership candidates.

End-of-term Adjournment debates are a valued opportunity, like Thursday’s business questions, to raise a whole range of issues. Today we have heard some great contributions from Members across the House on issues that are close to their hearts. Home Office delays were mentioned by, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I very much recognise the experiences they talked about, with constituents left in limbo and delays to day-to-day family visas. It is no fault of the civil servants; there is a failure to cope and plan, and a lack of resources. I, too, have Afghan interpreters’ families still living in bridging hotels for far too long, and it is not good enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) mentioned James Brokenshire. It is good that we also remember him today, as well as his mother, Ann Cryer, for her legacy through her work in campaigning on sexual exploitation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned that the gambling White Paper has been delayed four times and that we need gambling reform. She is quite right. Her comments are very much based on her experiences in Swansea East and her expertise on this issue. I hope that Ministers heed her calls to get on with this. I also congratulate her on her work on the menopause; she has done so much to make sure that this area gets the attention it needs. Not least, she managed to get both of us into Hello magazine.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about rail, giving me the opportunity to agree that we need greater rail investment from this Government, particularly in my corner of south-east Wales, where we have 11% of the rail network and 2% of rail enhancement funding. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about consequential funding for HS2 for Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke very well about the cost of living crisis, backlog Britain and NHS delays, as well as the housing crisis and the need for investment in housing and communities, with her call for local homes for local people.

In acknowledging the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), let me say how pleased we all were to see him get called very early in business questions today—a special end-of-term treat for him and for us all.

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about the importance of aerospace to our economy. Being in a neighbouring constituency, I agree with that, because many jobs in Newport East, too, are dependent on aerospace as people commute to his constituency.

It is the time of year for end-of-school reports and if we apply the same metric to this Government, the conclusion could only be: “Must do better”. One of the barometers by which to measure the Government’s performance is the timeliness of responses to inquiries from MPs across the House. Even on that basic criteria, the Government are failing dismally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned in business questions and during this debate.

[Aaron Bell]

The Procedure Committee has been conducting its usual work on this matter and a report should be out tomorrow.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I shall look at that with great interest as Members are very interested in this issue. Multiple Departments have a dire record on written parliamentary questions, particularly in relation to COP26 and the Department of Health and Social Care. The record on named day questions is not much better either.

The picture is not much brighter on general written correspondence. The most recent data shows that only 16% of MPs’ and peers’ letters on COP26 were responded to within the timescale set, with the Government Equalities Office and the Department of Health and Social Care faring only slightly better. That bleeds through to MP hotlines, which have been unreliable for some time. The Home Office said that it needs a recovery plan to support its hotline to return to acceptable service standards, and it is preparing that. However, the Home Office is not the only Department in need of a recovery plan. The recent chaos at the Passport Office shows how badly the Government need to improve. The passport issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, the hon. Member for Harrow East and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. We thank the civil servants, including those in the Newport passport office, who work so hard. I also put on record our thanks to all those who have come to work in Portcullis House.

I am running out of time, but I will mention another group who are being let down by the Government: the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. Ministers have had more than enough time to respond to Sir Robert Francis’s report, which recommends interim payments for victims now and the full inclusion of family members who lost loved ones in a future compensation framework. That would be a final recognition of the suffering of families such as my constituents, the Smiths, who lost their seven-year-old son, Colin, after he received infected blood products from a prison in Arkansas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is absolutely right that the Government must get on with this.

I am pleased, however, that progress is being made on the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill, which will finally scrap the hated six-month rule. Much thanks is due to charities such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie, which helped me with a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue. I am glad that the social security Bill will come through the House in September and I know that it will get cross-party backing.

Business of the House

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the global energy price hikes, which will have an impact here in the UK. I know that the UK taxpayer has benefited and will continue to benefit from the freezing of fuel duty, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to keep in place for the whole of this Government’s time in office, but I recognise the challenge that rural areas face. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to ask the Chancellor about this next week at Treasury questions, should he be in his place.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The independent expert panel findings on Tuesday should be a source of shame, most obviously to Mr John Bercow himself, but also to this House; to its policies and procedures, which we have reformed; and to a number of Members, former and current, who turned a blind eye because it suited them politically to do so. May we please have a statement in which we can raise all of these issues and, furthermore, a general debate on bullying in the workplace?

[Mark Spencer]

I know that my hon. Friend will be disappointed with some of that report’s findings, but we should also be enormously proud that the system we have in place holds people to account, and gives confidence to victims to come forward and confidence that their allegations or concerns will be addressed. Clearly, this is a topic that people want to talk about, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate.

Business of the House

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman about my noble Friend Lord Frost, a most distinguished figure and servant of this Government and of the nation.

The hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are being discussed between Her Majesty’s Government and individual member states of the European Union, which have responsibility for them. As I think he acknowledges, considerable progress has been made, with a number of countries being very willing to have reciprocal arrangements. May I confess, however, that I have failed, in that I have not read the New Musical Express this morning or, indeed, on any morning that I can recall?

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The Environment Agency is now formally investigating alleged criminal activity at Walleys Quarry landfill in my constituency. It is ultimately owned by Red Industries, a company controlled by Mr Adam Share, who in the past has been convicted and sent to jail for bugging the Environment Agency over another landfill. I also note the recent media reports about illegal fly-tipping—which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe)—and rogue waste dealers. One journalist had successfully registered his dead goldfish as a waste dealer with the Environment Agency. May we please have a debate on the regulation of, and the criminality within, Britain’s waste industry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those appalling and absurd crimes. How could somebody register a goldfish as a waste dealer? The Government are preparing significant reforms to continue to increase the pressure on illegal waste operators. Our planned electronic waste tracking reforms will make it harder to misidentify waste or dispose of it unsuitably. Our planned changes to the carriers, brokers and dealers licensing regime will improve licensing and make it harder still for rogue operators to escape detection, but I suppose it is to some extent reassuring to my hon. Friend, and to me, that the gentleman he referred to has been found guilty, convicted and sent to jail. Sometimes the law does take its course, in all its majesty.

Committee on Standards

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which came up time and again during consideration of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. It was made very clear that, in a democratically elected system, ultimately, it has to be for elected colleagues to be able to make the final decision. That is an incredibly important point of principle. It was put to me that, if we ever reached a point where unelected people could remove elected people, we would put ourselves into the position of a dictatorship. But I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for reform, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, that reform can only work if it comes from all parts of the House. By bringing her amendment today, it looks like we are moving the goalposts. For that reason, I cannot support her. What might she say about that?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

As I just said in response to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I share the concern that we are bringing this forward today. I sincerely hope that colleagues from all parts of the Chamber will be prepared to join together to review this system, which is so clearly flawed. I ask all colleagues to search their hearts carefully today. As MPs, there is no doubt we are our own harshest critics and judges. We spend so much of our lives trying to deliver justice to our constituents and fighting against unfairness wherever we see it. Today’s amendment is not about one judgment on one person. It is not about letting anyone off the hook, and it is not about rejecting the report of the Committee on Standards.

Electoral Commission

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).

When I heard that we were appointing a new chair of the Electoral Commission, in the manner of Brenda from Bristol, I said, “Not another one!” But in truth another was needed, partly because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, but also because of the other things that the previous chair of the Electoral Commission was doing, seeking to expand its empire and take on prosecution powers—things that were rejected by a majority of Members across this House. I trust that Mr Pullinger as chair will put voters first. Indeed, I am encouraged by the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the panel: that

“this is all about the voters”.

The reason I wanted to speak briefly in this evening’s debate is that I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, to which both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators gave evidence. I think Mr Pullinger would do well to reflect on that evidence. Without breaching any confidences of our private meeting or scooping our report, which is coming out in a little over 24 hours’ time, most of the members really feel that the election period really needs to be shortened from 25 days, ideally back to the 17 it was before, but perhaps to 20 days. The Electoral Commission said in evidence to the Committee that there were

“a number of benefits for voters, candidates and political parties”

from the 2011 legislation, which increased the period to 25 days, including:

“Allowing more time for voters to receive campaign material from candidates and political parties.”

I am not sure that that is necessarily an advantage. Perhaps we should have taken evidence from Brenda from Bristol and other ordinary voters, and perhaps also from campaigners.

I hope Mr Pullinger hears those words, reads our Joint Committee report and reflects on how his commission —assuming that we appoint him as chair this evening—might think about how to shorten the electoral period to the benefit of democracy, including perhaps by making recommendations to this place if necessary. However, he sounds like a fantastic candidate, with his service in this place and as national statistician, and I will be pleased to support him tonight.