Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and think I can give her reassurance on each of her points. The complaints and grievance procedure will include all passholders, as the working party has accepted. It will also ensure that people are very clear about rights and responsibilities, and that they all have a duty to abide by the rules as set out.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the positive response from the Leader of the House to the proposal I made, along with others, for this specialist in ending sexual violence to be a full member and adviser of the working group.

Does the Leader of the House support introducing a separate and named policy on sexual harassment? It is vital that we do not simply try to reuse an existing anti-bullying policy, which is essentially the respect policy, with its focus on things like mediation. Instead, we need a named sexual harassment policy, which will be more appropriate. Will the Leader of the House commit to looking to change the culture of this place, as well as the structures, and therefore look at issues like the consent training for MPs?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I commend the hon. Lady: she did first raise the issue of having a specialist adviser on sexual harassment, and I agree that that is important. I point out, however, that the House’s respect policy does deal with sexual harassment. It might not do so to her satisfaction, but for the purpose of clarity I should say that the helpline would include advice and guidance to individuals who wanted to complain of sexual harassment. I am, however, absolutely open to her suggestion that there should be a separately named policy on sexual harassment, which will be a matter for the working party to consider.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. He is of course aware that the decision to integrate the functions of the British Transport police into Police Scotland is devolved, but I recognise his concerns about this approach. He will also be aware that our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are raising those concerns with the Scottish Government. I have also been very clear that the UK Government will work with the authorities to ensure that overall policing, including policing across the border, remains as effective as it currently is.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

We believe that the Government are about to give the green light to the first UK fracking in six years, in North Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on how that is compatible with our climate change objectives, given that the Committee on Climate Change has said that three key tests have to be met? The Government have not met them, yet we believe the decision in Ryedale is imminent.

Private Members’ Bills

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Last Friday a closure motion was moved, but only 57 Members were present to vote in its support.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am surprised by what sounds like complacency from the Leader of the House. He knows that one of the reasons that Members cannot always be here is constituency obligations. When we know that his own Minister is going to talk out a Bill, that devalues this place. More than 130,000 people signed a petition when my National Health Service Bill was talked out earlier this year, so can he demonstrate greater seriousness and greater urgency in tackling this massive area of reputational damage to this House?

[Mr Lidington]

I said that we would consider seriously the proposals from the Committee. The hon. Lady needs to reflect on why her Bill failed to get the support of the majority of MPs.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I do not know when the review will report. It is right and proper—all Members would expect it—that the Government listen if the House believes that we have got something wrong. The case the hon. Gentleman raises is clearly one where we have listened, and have looked in more detail at what is being done. We will bring the report back to this House in due course and there will be an opportunity to question Ministers about it.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

So as to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny, will the Leader of the House use his best offices to ensure that there is no invocation of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty unless and until the full proposals that the Government intend to submit to the Commission to activate the process of withdrawal from the EU have been debated in full and voted on by Parliament?

[Chris Grayling]

We will have plenty of opportunities throughout the autumn to discuss and debate what is planned. That is something for the new Government and new Prime Minister to decide in September.

Digital Democracy Commission

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. The problems with the current system will be evident for many people. I have talked closely with the Clerks of the House about how they record votes. For those who are not initiated, once Members have been through the Lobby, we are crossed off a list with a black marker pen. That piece of paper is then taken by parliamentary staff and reconciled. It not only takes us about 15 minutes in total to walk through the Lobby; it is a considerable length of time—some hours—before the vote is published digitally.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on both her work on this issue and on securing this important debate. I very much welcome the commission’s findings, in particular those on electronic voting. My office worked out that in the previous Parliament, we spent 245 hours queuing up in order to cast 1,153 votes. Does she agree that having an electronic way of voting would also mean that we could record abstentions? Abstentions sometimes matter. They do not just mean that MPs were not here; they mean that neither of the two choices in front of them were any good.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. These are all issues that we need to debate and discuss if we are going to make any progress. I hope that, at the end of this debate, we will get some assurance from the Deputy Leader of the House that the matter will be taken seriously and that further work will be done.

As I said, a vote takes about 15 minutes in total—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has also done her maths. In the previous Session of Parliament, there were 544 Divisions in the Commons. Even if three minutes had been saved on each one—a modest improvement on our current practice—it would have meant a time saving of up to 27 hours for each MP. I hope we would have used that time productively; others may want to comment on that. That just goes to show that an awful lot of time is spent on something that could be done more quickly. We have also recently had experiments with iPads. They certainly speed up digital recording, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) indicated, but there are still issues with human error and accuracy.

The record of votes is important. In the modern age, it is ludicrous that people have to wait several hours to find out how their Member of Parliament voted on an issue. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, other things are not recorded. People get confused about what was an abstention and ask, “Was someone not there?” We should be able to record if someone is absent, for instance, because they are on maternity leave, or absent because they are sick or because they chose to abstain. That is common sense, one would think.

Clearly, any new approach will have problems, so it is worth teasing out what some of those are in the hope that they will be openly discussed and resolved. MPs could lose their smartcards, if that system is the one implemented, which may mean that fingerprints could be a preferred method. MPs could pass their cards to the party Whip or other MPs who could impersonate them or vote in their place, so we would need a system for verification. Verification currently allows for those who are on the premises but unable to vote in person to be nodded through by the Whips. I voted that way a number of times after my youngest daughter was born. The Whips nodded me through, but only after an Opposition Whip was satisfied that I was present, so we have a very crude way of verifying now. I think that could have been done differently and, certainly, we could look to improve it.

The cost of upgrading the system is not to be sniffed at. On Monday, the commission had reports from Officers of the House that it could cost more than £500,000 over the next three or four years, if decisions were made quickly. However, the long-term benefit could justify the one-off cost. Restoration and renewal of this Parliament provides a big opportunity to modernise this core activity of MPs.

[Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about time-saving, because clearly, some votes are consequential on other votes, so there is always going to be a time when we may have to wait for the result of a vote before we can vote again. However, sometimes, as with deferred Divisions, a number of votes could be carried out simultaneously, whereas currently we have to queue for separate 15-minute time periods to go through the Lobby.

It is worth stressing, as the hon. Member for Torbay said and as we heard from many Members—this is why we did not go for distant, remote electronic voting as a recommendation—that the ability to work closely and talk to Members on a daily basis is a very big part of the work of this House. It is important that that spirit is seriously considered in any change. However, I am directly asking the Deputy Leader of the House to take this matter very seriously and to ensure that the Government do not knock it into the long grass. It is a matter for the House. She is our champion, along with the Leader of the House, to Government. I hope she takes this seriously, because we need a green light to investigate change.

From talking to officials in the House, I know that, at the moment, there is a lot of enthusiasm for embracing the commission’s recommendations. A number can take place without interference—dare I say it?—from hon. Members. However, this is one where we really need to be engaged and I hope that today, the Deputy Leader of the House will set out a clear timetable on the measure and commit to serious consideration of its potential benefits and to reporting back to the House on that progress.

We can look at other examples in other Parliaments. Egypt, only two weeks ago, introduced an electronic voting system. It has had some problems with impersonation, so that is a lesson to be learnt. In Romania, politicians have 10 seconds to vote once they have initiated the smartcard voting system. In the United States, electronic voting was introduced to Congress in 1973. Members there vote by inserting their voting card into an electronic dock and by pressing the appropriate button. In South Korea, they vote electronically and can change their vote as they go, so there are very important issues that we might want to discuss about the change of culture that this would bring. Of course, as hon. Members have highlighted, in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament, voting is done electronically. It is not a new phenomenon, and we need to ensure that it is properly embraced.

In my lifetime, Parliament has evolved very slightly to reflect technological change. Voice recording was introduced in 1978, when I was a schoolgirl. In 1989, the Chamber was first televised, and only last year, a low-level camera was installed—I was a student in 1989, and I hope that, before I am a grandmother, we might have considered electronic voting, bringing Parliament into the 21st century.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again. In the European Parliament model, people can see instantly how the vote has gone. Does she agree that, if we had the technology to see how a vote has gone, it would enable us to hold over votes to a particular time in the day—or at least a couple of times in the day—which would, again, mean that we are not running backwards and forwards from one part of the Estate to the other?

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Lady brings valuable experience from her time in the European Parliament. All these things need to be thrown into the mix. We need to have a discussion about our culture here—it is an important part of this—but there are ways of resolving the issues without sticking rigidly to the current system. A change would save time and money, and critically, just be clearer to the public, so that they can see what is happening.

Overall, in terms of engagement, many people are keen to get involved in Parliament and politics but find them very opaque. This would be one step to improving that. Evidence from a survey carried out by Cambridge University showed that 46% of people say that they would like to get involved in politics and Parliament if they could, but less than 10% are currently engaged with Parliament. As we know, there is often a large gap between those who say that they will get involved and those who actually do, but even if half those who wanted to were able to, it would be a significant increase in the number of people engaging with what we do. That is not to decry what hon. Members do; week in, week out, we engage with and talk to people on the doorstep, but we reach relatively few. With better digital engagement overall—so, just moving away from the issue of electronic voting—we can enhance the face-to-face contact that we have. There are other elements of the DDC that we need to make sure we set in train and with which we can bring about change.

I think we are on the cusp of a revolution. The Digital Democracy Commission’s report lays out a pathway. We hoped on that commission that the new Parliament elected in 2015 would see the opening up of Parliament as nothing revolutionary, but as business as usual in the modern world. In preparing for this debate, I have been heartened by the number of hon. Members who were keen to register their interest, even if they were not able to be here for a short half-hour debate today. I had more than 30 Members who were keen to speak had this been a longer debate, and we may seek a further opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps when we hear from the Deputy Leader of the House about her timetable.

If we are to be more accountable and accessible to the people whom our Parliament serves and who elect us, we must not let this opportunity pass. This could be the Parliament when we finally get into the century we are in. As Members of Parliament, we need to be bold and embrace this change to engage more constructively with the public. We need to open up Parliament, listen to our constituents better and not simply broadcast what we do, which I am afraid to say, is a tendency of this institution.

Mr Speaker had the vision and the commission has done its work. We are now a year on. Officers of the House have made huge progress and I pay testament to them, as do other commissioners, on opening up data, making House publications more accessible, making it easier to use broadcast clips, improving our web and social media interaction and on developing a cyber Chamber. It is now for Members to show that we are firmly in favour of modernising our working practices. We who are privileged to be elected to this House must be the facilitators of this change. We need to lead by example.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure my hon. Friend’s comments will be greeted with a degree of concern and interest by those involved. We have, of course, secured a very large investment programme in the spread of superfast broadband. That is absolutely right and proper, and work is taking place in many parts of the country. There is an opportunity to discuss this matter immediately after the recess in a Backbench Business debate on precisely the subject of superfast broadband. I encourage my hon. Friend to bring up this point at that debate. Ministers will, I am sure, listen very carefully.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I again urge the Leader of the House to ask the Attorney General to come to the House to explain the legal advice that led to a fundamental departure in UK policy, when two British nationals were targeted and killed by an RAF drone attack in Raqqa? This is particularly important now, given that in the past few days the explanation of the legal grounds for that move have become ever more murky.

[Chris Grayling]

The Prime Minister has explained in detail to the House the reasons for his decisions, and he will provide more information in confidence, as is normal, to the new Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It has always been customary practice when either party has been in power, and in the legal world, that legal advice is not published but a matter of privilege between a lawyer and a client. That is how Governments have always operated and how they will continue to operate. The difference in this place is that both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General are regularly before the House for scrutiny, and the hon. Lady will have opportunities to put questions to them.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to communicate the issue to my right hon. Friend. I am very sympathetic to the work that has been done to address this around the world. As I said earlier, it is shocking that many countries still regard homosexuality as illegal. All of us in this House should work to end that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government plans to sell off a majority stake in the Green Investment Bank—a move that will damage investor confidence, set back the low-carbon economy, and, crucially, undermine the very reason for setting up the bank, which was to lever private investment by de-risking it?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not surprised to hear the hon. Lady’s concerns given her views. I believe that it is far better for an organisation like the Green Investment Bank to be able to stand on its own two feet. If it can function as an effective organisation without the need for taxpayer support, that is surely a good thing. It is a sign that investment in green business, green industries and green technologies is becoming more and more mainstream in the investment world.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a party matter, rather than a Government matter, since there are different policies among the coalition parties. However, it is important to show the detail, so I intend later this month to set out how the proposal that I made earlier this week can be implemented in Standing Orders.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

City college Brighton and Hove is struggling in the face of cuts to funding and rising costs. The staff, students and unions are all rightly concerned. May we have an urgent debate on funding solutions for the further education sector that are progressive and fair, and can that include looking again at a remedy for the historical unfairness in funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, in that they have to pay VAT in a way that their colleagues do not?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do. That is another very good point. The economic turnaround that has been brought about in the United Kingdom means that employment in Scotland is now at a record high. There have been seven consecutive quarters of economic growth in Scotland, and there are a quarter of a million more private sector jobs in Scotland than there were four years ago. That is a reminder of the potential if we continue to work together, and that is the message that I again repeat to the people of Scotland today.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Q9. I welcome suggestions that the Prime Minister will attend the crucial climate summit at the end of this month. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will go, and will he tell us what bold new initiatives the Prime Minister will be taking with him, because that is what my constituents in Brighton say they want? They want to protect what they love—[Interruption.] They want urgent action on climate change.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say for future reference that it is disorderly to display images in that way, and I say with all courtesy to the hon. Lady, whose principles and commitment I respect, that if everybody did that on every cause it would make a mockery of this place? I ask the hon. Lady to take a view much wider than her own immediate preoccupation.

Deregulation Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good point, which I think it would be more appropriate to respond to in writing. Clearly, there may well be contractual issues. If local authorities have entered into contracts for, say, a five-year period, there may be implications, so rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will write to him on that point.

Amendment 61 would remove from the Bill the three clauses that relate to taxis and private hire vehicles. That is not a course of action that the Government intend to adopt. On the contrary, we consider that the taxi and private hire vehicle clauses will have significant benefits, both in terms of cost savings for the trade and convenience for passengers, and we are determined to see those benefits realised.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister explain why he has not listened to what the travelling public want? There is huge concern about these clauses. He has not consulted the Local Government Association, nor has he listened to the public or the evidence, and as a result, he is going to put public safety at risk.

[Tom Brake]

I cannot agree with that at all. We are not putting public safety at risk, and I think the people who have concerns about safety do at least have London to consider, where, of course, all the measures apply, and I am not aware of significant issues being raised in relation to safety in London.

Clause 10 concerns the circumstances in which a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is required. Its purpose is to allow people who do not hold a private hire vehicle driver’s licence outside London and Plymouth to drive a licensed private hire vehicle when the vehicle is off duty. At a stroke, that will lift the burden that many families currently face of having to run a second car so that other family members can drive for domestic purposes. I have heard arguments to the effect that this will be unsafe and that the Government are being reckless in taking forward the policy, but I do not agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very sensible point. Apart from choice and preference, and whether a cab or a private hire vehicle is adapted for the disabled, there are also issues about levels of maintenance, and different standards in different local authority areas.

On the Opposition side of the House, and on my part, there is agreement about the need for reform of the industry. However, there is consensus across the trade that this piecemeal approach is not what is needed. What is different since the Westminster Hall debate a couple of months ago is that the Law Commission has now reported. In his opening statement, the Minister said that the Law Commission agrees with clauses 10 to 12; well, that is not quite the whole truth, is it? What the Law Commission has advocated—and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are not following through on this—is a comprehensive review to get rid of the inconsistency in standards across the country that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and others identified, and to deal with the concerns about inadequate enforcement. The idea that we can cherry-pick three proposals for deregulation and that there will be no consequences flies in the face of what the Law Commission is about, and seems rather contrary.

As my hon. Friends have indicated, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement said that if reforms were to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers. I do not see why the proposed reforms are so urgent that the Government should bypass meaningful consultation; in doing so, they are undermining the work of the Law Commission that they initiated.

We must have a holistic approach; changes to regulation should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Failure to do so not only disregards the trade and other stakeholders, but may put passenger safety at risk. The reforms look set to endanger the travelling public and ignore stakeholders. I do not believe that they are fit for purpose, and they should be removed from the Bill.

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to reinforce some of the arguments that hon. Members have made about amendment 61, to which I have added my name. Many people in my constituency have raised this issue with me, and there is real concern about public safety. Nothing that I have heard from the Government this afternoon has put my mind—or, I am sure, my constituents’ minds—at rest.

Taxi companies in my constituency have also raised concerns. I come back to a theme to which other hon. Members have returned time and again: nobody really knows what is driving these measures. People are not asking for them; on the contrary, organisations that are watching the proposals are sounding the alarm. They include the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we should surely listen to closely. Given that no counter-argument is coming from other organisations to balance the discussion, it strikes me as incredibly perverse for the Government to push ahead with these measures and fly in the face of so much advice suggesting that there are dangers involved.

I was particularly moved to hear the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) again tell the House the story of her 13-year-old constituent—she raised that topic in the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) a few weeks ago. It was horrifying to hear that story then, just as it was today. The bottom line is that people with disabilities, young women, those worried about how they will get home at night, and those without access to a car will be watching for the implications of clauses 10 to 12, and they are worried about them.

Brighton and Hove has 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. Many of them have said that they are worried about the Government’s attempts to rush through changes to the regulations, and that the measures will be bad for the travelling public and the city, and potentially dangerous. The Government proposals seem rushed and are another example of unthinking, anti-regulation, small-state ideology that has no basis in evidence or common sense and, as has been said, risks putting public safety at risk.

We have had nothing close to meaningful consultation, and the Government even failed to discuss these changes with councils before tabling the clauses. The Local Government Association put it politely, but states clearly:

“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”

Where is the speed coming from? Why do we have to pre-empt other processes to get these measures into statute so fast?

There is concern that the proposals could lead to women being put at risk of assault or attack by unlicensed and unregulated drivers when they travel late at night. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers, criminals posing as drivers, passengers being ripped off, and people being unsure whether the taxi they have flagged down is legitimate.

Ministers should surely follow the 2011 proposals of experts on the cross-party Select Committee on Transport, who advised the Government to listen to users—particularly those in vulnerable groups—those in the trade, and local authorities, and to keep the situation simple and local. Instead, clauses 10 to 12 show a systematic attempt to water down standards and rules that were designed to serve and protect the public.

I come back to the sense that this is being driven by—I do not know: is it being driven by ideology or something else? During the debate of the hon. Member for Easington in Westminster Hall, I just observed that the boss of the minicab giant Addison Lee had made an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservatives last year—it was reported as the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September. Government Members immediately started jumping up to point out that Addison Lee does not currently operate outside London and so has no particular interest. However, Addison Lee is on record as saying that it would very much like to operate outside London. I will leave it there; I simply say that when we are searching for a reason to understand why the Government are pursuing this policy, one cannot help but notice that there has been a very large donation from Addison Lee.

[John McDonnell]

I convene the RMT group in Parliament. I raised these issues at the RMT conference this morning and we had a discussion about their implications.

On the taxi and minicab issue, the RMT represents only the black cabs in London, which has been prayed in aid as operating the system that will now be rolled out elsewhere. I want to dissuade the Minister from the view that the RMT is happy with the regime in London at the moment. In fact, in the RMT’s view, there should be further regulation, with annual testing. The figures have already been given for assaults and rapes, which are occurring even in the capital city’s regulated regime.

What worries me is exactly what others have said. From the point of view of the union and a number of other organisations that have been cited, everyone thought that we were on a journey over the last couple of years: the Law Commission would conduct its investigation and review; there would be adequate consultation; a comprehensive Bill would be produced; and then we would establish a regime that, although perhaps not everyone would be happy with it, would at least be nationally comprehensive, effective, properly enforced and readily understandable. There is therefore a lack of comprehension of why the measures have been introduced in such haste. In fact, I am led to believe that one of the informal consultations on some of the legislation lasted only 10 days and was conducted by e-mail.

There may well be some association between donations, speed and amendments, but to be frank, what concerns me most is getting the legislation right, and I just do not think that the measure will prove effective. I think it will cause more problems than it is worth. I also think it will prove deeply unpopular as it is rolled out. If there is a lack of safety, particularly for women, the Government will reap the whirlwind. They will face a backlash, because what they are doing flies in the face of all the expert evidence that has been presented. Everyone who practises on the ground, right across the country, is saying that this is not the way to go about it, so I caution the Government: they are making a mistake today and may well want to think again before the day is out.

On marine investigations, again, people are slightly bewildered about why the measure is included in this Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who sits on the Front Bench, for taking us through the history and in particular the Derbyshire incident. I, too, want to go back to that incident, because I find it extraordinary. I remember the campaign about the Derbyshire and I remember that key period when a number of the unions and others were raising the problems with that type of ship. From 1975 to 1997, nearly 400 of them went down and we lost something like 1,300 seafarers. The Derbyshire was one of those ships. There was an issue with design and safety.

At the time, there were all sorts of insinuations about it being the crew’s fault. The RMT undertook its own investigation, along with Nautilus and the International Transport Workers Federation, as my hon. Friend said. They found the ship and discovered the real causes. However, the investigation would not have been reopened but for a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 by—who? By a Conservative Government. Until then, the system was not satisfactory. The Derbyshire relatives, the unions and others had to campaign because reopening an inquiry was left to the whim of a Minister. That was unsatisfactory. A Conservative Government thus changed the legislation to provide for an automatic reopening of an inquiry when new evidence was found.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, the Government are aware of that, and we have tried to respond, first of all by making the point, as the Department has done, that the London boroughs must be fully involved in the process and also by allowing the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have an opportunity to consider the detail of the changes and whether they are appropriate.

Turning to Government new clauses 22 and 23, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission are independent bodies established by Parliament and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Currently, both bodies have to provide a five-year corporate plan. The Committee has reviewed governance and suggested a five-year corporate plan should be produced in the first financial year of a Parliament, and the duty to update it and produce a new plan on an annual basis should be removed, although the Committee would retain the right to request updated plans outside this cycle. Value for money studies would take place at the beginning of the five-year period, not annually, and provision would be made to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to appoint independent members to its audit committee and other committees. These changes are supported by the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission.

I shall now turn—briefly—to the subject of poisons and explosives precursors. New clause 24 introduces the new schedule inserted by new schedule 2, which abolishes the statutory requirement for a poisons board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing system for poisons and explosive precursors to streamline the regimes and bring them into line with the latest EU regulations.

I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will wish to comment on new clause 8 and the preserved right to buy and the idea that within one year of Royal Assent a plan should be laid to replace homes that have been sold under right to buy and review the effectiveness of it. Since the revitalisation of right to buy, 19,500 households have achieved their home ownership aspirations, but this is not just about buying; it is also about building. More than £419 million from the right-to-buy sales has been ring-fenced to fund new homes, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review.

The impact assessment sets out a wider perspective on right to buy and how the policy will work. The Department for Communities and Local Government publishes quarterly statistics on right-to-buy sales in England and annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy, and live data tables are on the Department’s website. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, on future stock transfers, the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently published a stock transfer manual. So the Government have set out their position very clearly and the intention is that for transfers completing after 30 September 2014, net proceeds from preserved right-to-buy sales are, within three years, to be used to fund new affordable housing at no greater subsidy cost than under the main affordable homes programme.

[Caroline Lucas]

Not enough of that money is properly ring-fenced, and it has been estimated that only about one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced by more affordable housing. Is the Minister as shocked as I am to discover that in one London borough a third of the council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties that they now rent back at very high rents?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course we can always ask for more, but the point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that one in seven figure is misleading, because the money we are talking about is from extra sales, over and above the profile, and as far as that is concerned, this very considerable sum has been set aside. We are confident that over the next three years we will get the sorts of results I described.

On new clauses 10 to 14 on Sunday trading, I am afraid this time I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although I will not go on at great length as I am hoping he might have a chance to speak about this. The interests of smaller retailers, the working hours of employees, the effect of extra lorry traffic and the need to have some family day consideration lead the Government to the view that the current balance does not need changing, although it was for the Olympics, and very successfully so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I will not give way because others wish to speak. I am trying to ensure that other Members can get in.

Then we hear that this is all about protecting the workers. Again, that is an absurd argument. First, what about those people who want to work on a Sunday? I am talking about young people who are desperate to get a foot on the ladder and cannot get a job on a Sunday. The current regulations are depriving them of that. What a ridiculous situation. The Minister and shadow Minister say it is absolutely fine for people who work in a Tesco Express to work every hour that God sends on a Sunday. They can work from 6 am to 11 pm, yet if they worked in a big Tesco, they would have to be protected from working those long hours. It is a completely absurd argument. With the high street facing competition from the internet, we must give our shops the opportunity to compete. People can shop at all hours on the internet—[Interruption.] I will be two seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming to a close. People can shop for any amount of time at Waitrose on the internet, or have their goods delivered at any hour on a Sunday, but they cannot go into a Waitrose to shop. Workers can take the orders online, but they cannot work in a shop. It is a completely absurd situation.

My final amendment is about garden centres, which cannot open on a Sunday. I want people to think about that, because most garden centres are very small businesses. They might be big in area, but they are often small one-man bands. I do not see why they should be lumped in with companies such as Asda, Tesco or Morrisons, when they are only small businesses. I will leave my remarks there.

[Caroline Lucas]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group, but given that we are so pressed for time, I will speak to just one of them, new clause 8, which I hope to press to a vote.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing, which is yet another indictment of this Government, who have turned their back on “generation rent”. Housing is undoubtedly at the heart of the concerns of my constituents in Brighton. That message comes across clearly from conversations on our city streets, in my surgeries and from the e-mails and letters I receive.

In addition to tackling things such as letting fees, housing standards and security of tenure in the private rented sector, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. Yet this coalition’s slapdash, ill-thought-out approach to right to buy is undermining this. The Bill, as currently drafted, would reduce the eligibility period for the right to buy from five years to three years. Giving local authority tenants and some housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home at a discounted price is not a bad thing in itself, but only on the strict condition that it does not jeopardise affordable housing supply, including the ability of housing associations to build new affordable housing.

The new clause would require the Government to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of right to buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and ask for an assessment to be carried out of changes since 2012 before further policy changes are made. Around 1.8 million households are waiting for a social home, which is an increase of 81% since 1997. The reality of right to buy is about much more than families being able to own their home. Last year, it was revealed that rich landowners are cashing in, buying up multiple ex-council properties and renting them back to people on endless housing waiting lists. In one London borough, as I said earlier, a third of council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties.

Far too often, the rich, not the poor, are the real beneficiaries of housing benefit. Currently, only one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced, and I find it astonishing that the Government are so complacent that they are not even monitoring the number of homes replaced following the preserved right to buy. Housing associations say that, in fact, the number is likely to be even less than one in seven. It is inexcusable that Ministers have not even consulted housing associations, which provide 2.5 million homes to more than 5 million people.

We are a rich country. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need a major programme of direct capital investment to build sustainable council housing, and the constraints on borrowing faced by local authorities should be lifted, so that councils can better meet demand for new homes. We must not inhibit the ability of housing associations to build more homes. This would ease pressure on the private market and, in turn, help rent levels and housing prices. Instead, we have the appalling situation where we are paying housing benefit to private landlords at extortionate market rates for good houses that once belonged to the taxpayer. It is a scandal.

Today, house prices speak for themselves. In my constituency, the average one-bedroom flat costs nearly six and three-quarter times the median household annual income, and three-bedroom houses cost more than 12 times. That is why I hope that people will support my new clause.

[Mark Field]

I think I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when I express some concerns about what appears to be the anomalous situation in London with the short-term letting of residential properties. These proposals have caused enormous concern among communities in the heart of our capital.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was originally introduced to ensure that London’s permanent housing stock would be protected from strong market pressure to convert homes into visitor accommodation, and was deemed wholly necessary to deal with the acute housing shortage that London was then experiencing. At that time, London had a population of some 7.5 million and declining. Its population now stands at 8.2 million and, as all London MPs know, increases at a breath-taking annual rate. It needs to be recognised that allowing greater flexibility to change use from permanent residential occupation to short-term letting will have significant implications for London’s stock of permanent housing. It may make it impossible for our local authorities to meet their targets for new homes.

My constituents have very good reason to believe that a loosening of the rules governing short lets, as set out in this somewhat ill-thought-through new clause 21, will make it much harder to keep their buildings safe, secure and well maintained. It risks undermining a sense of community that can be all too difficult to build in an essentially transient urban population. In fact, London’s hyper-mobility and hyper-diversity get greater year by year. It will make it far more difficult for local authorities to deal with noise and antisocial behaviour. Above all, it threatens to make central London homes, already traded by many people as some sort of global currency, into little more than assets to be exploited for maximum profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Government Policy (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking all those responsible for bringing the Bill in good order through Committee, in particular my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, and all those who participated. I specifically acknowledge the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who helped to draft the amendment on BBC licensing, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who helped enormously with the section on the Defamation Act 2013.

Before saying a few words about the Bill, I will say something that I know the Solicitor-General would have liked to say at the end of Report, before he was timed out. I see the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) is in his place, and he will know that the Queen’s Speech outlined the steps we will take to deal with zero-carbon homes and establish allowable solutions. We are aware that within that framework, the decision on the commencement date for amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which restrict the ability of local authorities to impose their own special requirements, must be made in such a way that the ending of those abilities to set special requirements knits properly with the start of the operation of standards for zero-carbon homes and allowable solutions. I hope that will make the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, my hon. Friends who are concerned about the same question of timing—rest easy.

The Bill goes to the House of Lords in a condition which, despite the splendid rhetoric from those on the Opposition Front Bench, is similar to that in which it entered this House. There have been significant discussions in Committee and on Report—some things have been added, some things changed, and some dropped—but broadly the Bill goes as it came, and does what it set out to do, which, as I explained on Second Reading, is not in any way to substitute for the enormous amount of work that has been going on across Government for the past three or four years to lessen the burden of regulation by removing regulations from the statute book, improving regulations, changing guidance, and reducing the complexity of bureaucracy that surrounds guidance, orders, codes of practice and so on. Nevertheless, this Bill makes a contribution to that process and helps in a significant way to reduce costs. I remind the House of some few items in the Bill that are of great significance.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but does he not accept that a Bill that is so ideologically based—it is essentially evidence-free, simply saying that all regulation is bad and that the free market is always good—does not do justice to protecting people or the environment?

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Lady makes an odd point, in the sense that if the purpose of the Bill were to suggest that all regulation were bad, it would have a much wider scope than it does. There will remain after this Bill many thousands of pages of regulation, much of which is well intentioned and well aimed. Our contention remains that there is, alas, a certain amount of regulation that is burdensome, bureaucratic and sometimes counter-productive and that often has adverse effects on growth and—this matters very much to the hon. Lady—the ability of our country to satisfy social and environmental concerns.

I draw the House’s attention briefly to measures such as clause 1, which gives self-employed people the ability not to be governed by health and safety at work laws under most circumstances; the sensible measures on taxi and private hire vehicles, which were widely welcomed by those around the country who are being unnecessarily constrained; the significant changes being made to alcohol and entertainment licensing; and the considerable advances on poisons that have just been made on Report.

I want to end with a word on poisons. A part of my personal journey in the red tape challenge began when I discovered that in this country we operated a system—this is germane to the hon. Lady’s point—whereby someone would pay a small fee and send a piece of paper to an office; there the paper was stamped, which cost the taxpayer a certain amount; it was then sent back and the person was allowed to sell all sorts of very poisonous substances. However, people had to send the same piece of paper and the same fee if they wanted to sell things such as household bleach. It was an entirely purposeless exercise, which had gone on for years and years. It neither served the purpose that we wish it to serve—that of regulating properly the sale of extremely dangerous substances—