Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am advised that Specsavers is currently negotiating contracts with a number of independent opticians to ensure that there is appropriate coverage. I am advised, too, that where it is unable to negotiate a contract locally, the DVLA does not expect individuals to travel excessive distances. Where it is satisfied that a contracted optician or optometrist is not available, the DVLA will approach an independent provider to conduct the vision tests on an ad hoc basis. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents may be able to make use of that.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

My constituent Dawn Astle is campaigning for justice for her late father, the former West Bromwich Albion and England footballer, Jeff Astle, who sadly died in 2002 after suffering neurological damage as a result of heading old-style leather footballs. When I recently visited Coalville rugby club, I found it had numerous leaflets advising about the risks and dangers of head injuries, yet in the words of Dr Robert Cantu, a leading neurologist, football is “light years behind” rugby union in appreciating this problem. May we have a debate on what more the football governing bodies can do to address this long-running issue?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend rightly raises an important issue on behalf of the family of Jeff Astle as well as those currently playing the sport. His question is all the more poignant given that we heard this morning the very sad news of the tragic death of the Australian cricketer, Phillip Hughes. I believe that the Football Association published new guidelines in August relating to the problem of head injuries. The FA says, however, that it is aware that the rules around treating head injuries cover only players in the present and the future and cannot cover past injuries. I am sure that a debate would give Members an opportunity to discuss what more could be done—in other sports as well as football. I am sure that this would be a good argument to present to the Backbench Business Committee.

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Awareness of such issues is important. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is doing his bit to increase awareness by raising the matter in the House today. I will contact Health Ministers so that they can judge how best to respond to his point.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May I bring to the attention of the House early-day motion 455, which stands in my name?

That this House believes that the UK’s air passenger duty is acting as a barrier to allowing hardworking families to take holidays abroad, when the majority already have to pay a premium due to school term-time restrictions; and calls on the Government to reduce the financial impact on hardworking families by scrapping the air passenger duty applicable to children.

Currently, all children aged two and over flying from a UK airport pay the same amount of air passenger duty as an adult. That puts a significant amount on the cost of flying for families and the policy is out of line with most taxes, including on clothes and books, where children are exempt. British families face the full whammy of paying full APD on all flights plus a premium for taking their children on holiday out of school time. May we please have a debate on the amount of tax levied on children’s flights in the UK?

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Let me turn to the serious parts of the questions first. The hon. Lady asked about what she called the “absence” of legislation. If we look at the business I have just announced, we see that it includes the Recall of MPs Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill, which is of global importance, the Childcare Payments Bill, which will be of enormous help to many people in this country, and the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which, as with any matter of taxation, is extremely important. That is the business of the House in just the next 10 days, so to say that business is thin is a refrain for some week past; it is not relevant to this week.

The hon. Lady asked when there would be a vote on opting in to certain measures in justice and home affairs. We have, of course, already decided to opt out of 100 measures, which is the largest return of power from Brussels to Britain ever seen in the history of this country. She said that I had announced the business up to 17 November, but she was not listening carefully enough, because I have announced the business up to 11 November. There is more time before we reach 20 November, as simple arithmetic makes it possible to deduce.

The hon. Lady asked about the coalition and when there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss money resolutions and private Members’ Bills. Those are discussed on private Members’ Bills days, and this issue was raised in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. It can hardly be said that the House does not have an opportunity to address these things, but, as she will have gathered, money resolutions have not been agreed in the Government on the European Union (Referendum) Bill or the Affordable Homes Bill. She asks whether that allows other private Members’ Bills to proceed, and the answer to that is yes. That is why I have announced in the business the money resolution relating to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which will be moved on Monday. I am also placing on the Order Paper a motion that will allow that Bill to go into Committee. Other private Members’ Bills are, in the light of this situation, able to proceed.

The hon. Lady asked about votes that took place this week in the House of Lords, and of course the Bill she mentions will come to the Commons, we will be able to consider those amendments and the Government will have the opportunity to ask the House to reverse them if it wishes to do so. I note that yet again she did not ask—the Opposition never seem to—for any debates on, or time to discuss, the economy of this country. We look forward to a few such requests, because since the last business questions the GDP figures have shown our economy to be 3% bigger than it was a year ago and the statistics released yesterday showed the number of workless households in this country now to be at its lowest for at least 18 years—the figure is lower than at any point during the last Labour Government. Although we have our differences in the coalition from time to time, we have brought about that transformation of the economic prospects of this country. I will of course convey to the Chief Whip the hon. Lady’s congratulations on his dog doing so well in the Westminster dog of the year show.

As the hon. Lady asked about the Government record on policies towards women, I have to remind her that, under Labour, female unemployment rose 24%, and under this Government there are more women in work than ever before. When the Government whom she supported left office, 25% of the FTSE 100 boards had no female members. Now there are no FTSE 100 boards that have no female members. A higher proportion of public appointments have gone to women this year than in any year in the previous decade. Half of all honours this year have gone to women, which never happened under the previous Government. There are more women-led businesses than ever before, and there are, after the work that we have done in the Foreign Office over the past four years, more women ambassadors than ever before. Since I am on record all over the world as saying that the great strategic prize of this century is the full economic, social and political empowerment of women everywhere, it is clear that sometimes this is what a feminist looks like, with or without the T-shirt, and I have no hesitation in saying that.

Finally, as I always congratulate the hon. Lady on something—I have found something to congratulate her on every week so far—I congratulate her on being omitted by Maureen Lipman from the roll-call of reasons not to vote Labour any more. Maureen Lipman announced that, for the first time in five decades, she will not be voting Labour. She said:

“The Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade? I can’t, in all seriousness, go into a booth and put my mark on any one of them.”

I will draw Maureen Lipman’s attention to the hon. Lady, as she might be worth a vote.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

On Monday, we had a report on HS2 by Sir David Higgins. As with many such reports, his raised more questions than it gave answers. The blight of this project affects many thousands of people along the proposed route, including many of my constituents. Uncertainty now about the location of the east midlands hub will only serve to spread this blight even wider. May we please have a statement from the Government about when we will know the location of the east midlands hub and the route for phase 2, so that people can get the compensation they need to get on with their lives?

[Mr Hague]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of Transport Ministers. Clearly, the location of the east midlands hub needs to work for both Derby and Nottingham, and provide the best possible wider connectivity to the region. However, that work is in its early stages, so it is premature to say that there will be a Government statement on it, and unfair to identify any particular sites until the Government are more certain about where that site might go because of the risk of blight to people’s properties. None the less, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and I will draw them to the attention of the Ministers.

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that I can expand on what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in half an hour in this House. He answered many questions, including from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot add to what he has said, but he did stress the importance that the Government attach to the matter and indeed to the future of steel production overall. He will continue to keep the House up to date, and I am sure that he will be touch with hon. Members whose constituencies are affected.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I feel compelled once again to raise the matter of foreign lecturers working in Italian universities, known collectively as lettori, who have been discriminated against for decades on the basis of nationality. My right hon. Friend will know of this issue from his former role. He will also know that despite various assurances from the Italian Government that this issue will be resolved, nothing has happened. They promised to intervene in July but that did not materialise. May we have a statement from the Government on what further measures they can take to persuade the Italian Government to stop this practice of discrimination, which is in breach of all European treaties.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise this issue. The Government have repeatedly raised their concerns. I did so as Foreign Secretary with Italian Ministers and with the Italian ambassador. Senior officials and Ministers continue to raise it. Our ambassador in Rome is seeking a further meeting with the Italian Education Minister and the head of the universities department to discuss the next steps. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will want to keep my hon. Friend up to date on this, as he has done in the past.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

I will give way in a moment. Let me get past my third line.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for Members to respond properly to this growing cynicism. I say at the outset, however, that the problem will not be solved by Westminster imposing a solution on the British people.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate, however, that the matter of English votes for English laws is a boil that has festered for far too long, and does he appreciate the frustration of my constituents, who see Scottish MPs voting on matters that affect North West Leicestershire, when, quite rightly, the corresponding legislation has been devolved to Scotland, and I have no say over it?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will do my best, as did the Leader of the House, to make a rational speech and address that very point later in my speech.

The Scottish referendum was a shining beacon of democracy at its best. Faced with a crucial choice about their future, registration and turnout among the people of Scotland was unprecedented. No one can have failed to be impressed by the millions of people coming out to vote and being so passionate about the future direction of their country. By a clear majority, the Scottish people voted to pool and share resources across the UK, and I would like to pay tribute to the enormous hard work of some involved in the Better Together campaign from across the political spectrum. In the Scottish Parliament, I pay tribute to Johann Lamont for Labour, Ruth Davidson for the Conservatives and Willie Rennie for the Liberal Democrats.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who all played a big role, and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). I also pay tribute to campaigners on the yes campaign for their passion and hard work and to all those who voted.

The referendum sent a clear message, from both yes and no voters, that the status quo is unacceptable—that we cannot keep running the country the way we do—and this groundswell is not restricted to Scotland but has been repeated the length and breadth of the country. The country wants to break the stranglehold of Westminster, and it wants power shifted away from this place on a grand scale. People want to feel they genuinely have a say. They are fed up with feeling powerless and they are frustrated that powerful vested interests are not faced down. They want decisions and power close to where they live, in towns and cities up and down the country. That is why we need to grasp this opportunity and reshape the country in the way the people want, not the way we in Westminster want. Westminster does not always know best—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

I very much support that, as do, I think, the vast majority of people in the Labour party and many of the other parties that participated in the referendum.

We had a tightly fought and strongly argued debate on the referendum, and we are now all entitled to accept that there was a clear and decisive result. It now appears that no form of devolution will satisfy those who are in favour of separation. We are starting to see not only unhappiness about the result but a rejection of the result. The myth of betrayal is being put forward. We are starting to see the “grievance a day” mentality. That will potentially poison Scottish politics unless those of us who are in favour of settlement move forward in a positive and constructive fashion.

I recognise that, as a result of what has happened in Scotland, there are issues for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We ought to adhere to two principles: first, all MPs are elected equal; and secondly, we must respect the integrity of the Union. We cannot have a situation where Scots are sent out of the room for some debates. As has been said elsewhere, we cannot have Scots MPs being sent out for some things, Welsh MPs being sent out for others, Northern Ireland MPs being sent out for different subjects, and London MPs being sent out for others still. I recognise that England is a nation, although I have to say that it is unfortunate, perhaps, that it must be about the only nation in the world that does not have its own national anthem.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with this:

“If it’s wrong and something needs to be corrected then even if in the short term it looks that it might be a disadvantage to our party, long term if you do the right thing it’s good for the party. What’s right for the country is right for our party.”

If the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) accepts that the West Lothian question needs to be addressed, why cannot he?

[Mr Davidson]

I do think that the West Lothian question should be addressed, but not by sending Scots out of the room.

I very much take the view that the disparity in scale between the different parts of the Union must also be accepted. I want to see a solution to what we can perhaps describe as the English problem, whether that involves an English parliament, regional structures, or city regions. I do not mind any of that if we have had a reasoned debate and discussion. However, it is inappropriate for people to suggest that EVEL should be introduced as a knee-jerk reaction without full consideration, debate and discussion within England itself. We have to remember that the process of Scottish devolution has been very lengthy, thorough, involving and all-embracing: it was not produced on the spur of the moment very much for party advantage. I understand to some extent why some Conservatives are doing this, but I appeal to them not to seek to pursue party advantage on this question at the risk of damaging the future of the Union.

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Many hon. Members will appreciate Barbara Hepworth’s work, as many visitors to the Mander centre will have done over the past 46 years. It is possible to protect such sculptures through statutory listing, and my hon. Friend may seek a debate on the wider issues about protecting our cultural landmarks, but I am sure that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would also be pleased to meet him to discuss what can be done to help his campaign and save this particular sculpture for the future enjoyment of his constituents and many visitors to Wolverhampton.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

While not wishing to annoy the House, I am afraid that I must again raise the issue of nuisance telephone calls. My constituents tell me that despite registering for the telephone preference service they find themselves inundated with unsolicited calls at all hours of the day. May we please have a debate about what more the Government can do to lift this blight from people’s lives that causes so much misery to our constituents?

[Mr Hague]

There is great concern in the House about this problem—it was raised last week as well—and the DCMS is taking measures to address it. It published its nuisance calls action plan on 30 March and since January 2012 regulators have issued penalties totalling more than £1.9 million to companies for breaching the rules. Further work is under way to see what more can be done to tackle the issue, as set out in the action plan, and I know that DCMS Ministers would be willing to discuss that with my hon. Friend.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Many intertwining things have brought us to this point. I would not like to traduce the motivations of anybody who contributes to the debate, but the motivations of those who were on the commission should not be traduced either. It is important that we accept that.

I should like to get back to the terms of the motion. As I said, the process was in line with the kind of process that one would expect for any other senior appointment outside this place. In the recent past, the appointment was at the discretion of the Speaker, who was handed two names by the retiring Clerk. Even if some Members objected to the result of the process, I think it is welcome that the tradition of the Speaker getting to choose between two names handed to him by the predecessor Clerk has been left behind and that the House is trying finally to bring its recruitment processes into the 21st century.

Although I do not want to comment any further on the proceedings of the panel, I understand the concern of some Members at the outcome and I welcome today’s motion. The worries have centred around the fact that despite being eminently qualified as a chief executive, the successful candidate is not an expert on parliamentary procedure. However, the fact is that an expert on parliamentary procedure who has spent their entire working life in our excellent Clerk’s department is unlikely to be able to demonstrate the requirements needed to be an outstanding chief executive. That is why the Hansard Society, through its Puttnam commission in 2005, advocated splitting the Clerk and chief executive roles and why it has advocated governance reforms since.

It is clear that we have a tension at the heart of the role of Clerk and chief executive and considering some of the imminent changes facing the House Administration, I believe that it is evident that that tension is likely to get worse and to do so quite quickly. The restoration and renewal project could mean Members having to decant this building for an entire Parliament or longer. However it is accomplished, it will be complex and extremely demanding, exposing us to huge practical challenges and to great reputational risk. I might add that I firmly believe that it might also be a great opportunity to take a new look at how Parliament operates and communicates with the people it is here to serve.

A programme of digital transformation has already been embarked on, with the twin aims of radically improving Parliament’s ability to work and communicate and achieving a step change in our efficiency. There is the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, which is exploring the potential offered by digital communications to enhance our interaction with our constituents. It often seems to me that our IT equipment actively stands in the way of our doing our jobs effectively when it should be facilitating greater communication in a secure and robust way.

There is the challenge of the looming general election —we all have our own challenges coming up with that.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

No.

The general election will mean managing the end of the first ever fixed-term Parliament and the first coalition since the second world war against the backdrop of the very volatile times in which we are living. More than 2,000 staff require management and Parliament handles a budget of more than £200 million. I believe that the smooth operation of change management in these vital areas is just as important in the delivery of parliamentary services as the crucial advice we receive from our Clerks in their important interpretation of “Erskine May” and our procedures. In 2007, as the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said, the Tebbit report considered and dismissed the idea of the separation of the role of Clerk and chief executive. However, the report said that Clerks hoping to be appointed chief executive should in future have “senior management experience” and that should mean

“having spent a period outside the Clerk's Department and preferably beyond the confines of Westminster”.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Ms Eagle]

No.

That has not happened, but the challenges facing the holder of the Clerk and chief executive’s job have undoubtedly multiplied. It now makes sense, therefore, to revisit the original consideration of the report and whether we should split the role, which is why I welcome the motion before us this evening and urge the House to support it.

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Again, I cannot offer an additional debate next week. The Opposition regularly have time available to them to bring forward these issues. The hon. Lady says that the Prime Minister did not answer the question, but he did point out that far fewer people are in relative poverty now than there were at the time of the last general election, including 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010. Also, very importantly, there are now 50,000 fewer households stuck in the trap of never having worked. This is how we are addressing poverty, and we are doing so a lot more successfully than the previous Labour Government.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Snibston discovery park and museum in my constituency is currently under threat of closure by Leicestershire county council, despite being a popular local attraction that receives five-star reviews from people who have recently visited it. A number of the friends and supporters of Snibston wish to take over the running of this attraction as an independent trust. May we have a debate on what help and support the Government can give to community, voluntary and independent groups seeking to take over the running of council-held assets?

[Mr Hague]

Although I cannot offer an additional debate at the moment, the Government strongly support this. As my hon. Friend knows, we have introduced a community right to bid to give communities a better chance to buy local assets that they cherish. He will like to know that so far 1,500 assets around the country have been listed as assets of community value. We are providing £19 million-worth of support for communities to help them to utilise this right to bid. While not knowing the local issues regarding this very important facility, I strongly encourage all those involved to look at how the Government’s approach can benefit it.

Business of the House

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes that sort of accusation. It is not that there was no security clearance, but that developed vetting had not taken place, which is a substantially different process. Security clearance is distinct from developed vetting.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

In the first three months of this year, car insurance premiums fell dramatically, according to the AA, due to legal reforms introduced by the Ministry of Justice to curtail organised whiplash fraud. May we have a debate on measures that the Government have introduced to help consumers and taxpayers—measures such as freezing fuel duties, raising the personal tax-free allowance, scrapping green taxes and enabling local authorities, such as mine in North West Leicestershire, to freeze council tax for a fifth consecutive year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly goes to points that matter a great deal to people. The fall in insurance premiums has been positive, and it is positive that councils across the country have been supported to freeze council tax, which, in many areas, doubled during the life of the previous Government. Relatively low-income households who pay tax have seen £700 come off their tax bill as a consequence of the coalition Government’s commitment to increasing the personal tax allowance. Under Labour plans, fuel duty was due to increase and escalate, but fuel will now be 20p cheaper than it would have been under those plans. There are so many examples of measures that are making a positive difference to people paying their household bills.

Deregulation Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman says reflects his constituency, but for the majority of the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the only way in which my constituents could get BBC 3, BBC 4 or, in most parts of it, BBC 2, let alone Channel 4, was to pay Sky. It had an absolute monopoly on digital television in the south Wales valleys. Because of the mixture of platforms, the geography, the various ways in which, for instance, mansion block flats in London work and all the rest of it, it is important that we have a public service broadcaster with a commitment and a statutory requirement to deliver to every household and provide something for everybody: the 83-year-old who likes listening to Chaucer and Mantovani—if there is a person who likes only that combination—and the 18-year-old who is interested only in the kind of things that are shown on BBC 3.

That is an important commitment and we need that combination, because as somebody once put it to me, if we are to have one 800 lb gorilla in the forest, in the shape of Sky, it is a good idea to have a second 800 lb gorilla in the forest, because that is safer for everybody. The competition we have in the UK between public service broadcasting and the commercial sector is positive. We were wrong in the past to campaign against having ITV and the commercial sector and all the rest. It is right to have that mixture. The two feed off each other, and Sky is now finally learning that it is a good idea to produce programmes of its own.

The licence fee is a phenomenal success for this country. The £2.7 billion that the hon. Gentleman talks of is basically an investment in production, which is why programmes are sold all around the world. We are the only country in Europe that manages to be a net exporter of programming. That might be because of our history, but I think it is also because we have a strong BBC. I also think that the alternatives to the licence fee that are experienced elsewhere in Europe, which many people tout—for instance, Germany has a mixture of a licence fee and advertising, others have a public service broadcasting model based just on advertising, and the Netherlands has a fixed amount of income tax—are more flawed than the licence fee. To paraphrase Churchill, yes, the licence fee may be terrible—for all the reasons that I am sure people can adduce: it is not progressive, it bears down unequally, it affects everybody, whether they are rich or poor, and all the rest of it—but it is better than all the alternatives.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not here for the beginning of the debate. I would normally be very generous, but he was not here even for the beginning of my speech, let alone the moving of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.

That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for the beginning of the debate. End of story, I am afraid.

If the Government do not put proper sanctions in place, they are in danger of cutting the overall income for the BBC. On the whole, I think the idea of a summary review of the licence fee, as well as the way in which Governments have sometimes tended to proceed with a new royal charter, is problematic in a modern democracy. It has meant going through the back door of Buckingham palace, rather than in through the front door of this palace in Westminster. On the whole, I would prefer a proper debate in the round. If there are going to be changes after the next charter review and the next licence fee review, that is the time for us to make proper decisions about how we ensure that the licence fee is not undermined but that some of the egregious examples we have all heard of—people being been sent to prison for what is a minor offence—are dealt with too.

As I have said before, in many ways I agree that the licence fee is terrible—it bears down heavily on the poor, just as it bears down on the rich—but it also means that the poor have an opportunity to get quality television. There are very few things in this country about which one can genuinely say with one’s hand on one’s heart, “We do it better than anyone else in the world”, but I honestly think we do broadcasting better than any other country in the world. By proceeding in the wrong order, because of how the Government have mishandled this debate, there is a danger that we will undermine the licence fee and break something that is fundamentally a British value—good public service broadcasting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Having worked on the Löfstedt review of health and safety reform and served on both the Committee that subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny and the Public Bill Committee, I can tell the House that no one is happier than I am to see it reach its final stages. It will serve as a further lever to economic growth, and it builds on the Government’s enviable reputation for reducing obsolete, redundant and unnecessary legislation. I am thinking particularly of the duty of care for non-financial regulators to take account of economic growth as a game-changer. It will change the relationship between business and the regulators, and will lead to better regulation. Health and safety reform is good news for our economy, for our wealth creators and for jobs. The “use of land” provisions have brought about an accord between landowners and ramblers which has been welcomed on all sides and which should streamline the process of moving public footpaths for the benefit of both landowners and those who use these greatly valued rights of way.

Clauses 51 and 52 were originally tabled as new clauses in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. My original proposal was supported by 149 Members on both sides of the House, who formed a coalition across the political spectrum—a rainbow coalition. Such a number of supporters for a Back-Bench amendment to a Government Bill is unprecedented in recent years, and I thank all the Members involved. Of course, I also thank the Government for adopting the measure.

For 20 years, the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of non-payment of television licence fees. It believes that a higher level of compliance can be achieved without recourse to the courts. The BBC itself said that it did not want people to go to prison, but the fact remains that last year 51 people did go to prison, as opposed to 48 the previous year. An e-mail that I received from a barrister stated:

“During my time in Court I was struck by the number of poor people up before the bench who were receiving a criminal conviction for not paying their television licence. Most of them were guilty only because they were very poor. They did not seem to be feckless people, just people who were down on their luck. Prosecuting them was (and is) shameful and remains a blot on our legal system.”

The BBC has responded to the proposal for decriminalisation by saying that it will lead to an increase in evasion and a reduction in its income, so I hope that the review will include consideration of the experience of Scotland, where the number of prosecutions for non-payment decreased from 2,827 in 2004-5 to just 34 in 2012-13, owing to greater emphasis on alternatives to prosecution such as fiscal fines as a result of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. I understand from the latest evasion figures issued by TV Licensing that the number of evaders in Scotland is 66,000, and the rate of evasion is 5%—exactly the same as it is in England, although we criminalise 180,000 of our fellow citizens every year. The BBC has been guilty of spin on this topic, and trying to spin politicians is a dangerous game to play.

Let me sum up the debate by saying that the Bill builds on the Government’s achievements in cutting the needless red tape that has been allowed to build up on the statute book for many years. I hope that, in the case of BBC licence fee non-payment, it will remove a blot from our legal system.