Recall of MPs Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Watkinson(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Watkinson
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.
Chris Bryant
I will restrict my comments to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others.
In the first round of these debates a few weeks ago, I supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) because I wanted a fuller system of recall that gave voters the opportunity to decide when a recall should be advanced, rather than keeping such decisions entirely within the House. At the time, I recognised the honest and honourable endeavour of the hon. Member for Cambridge and others in his party to find another way of opening up that gate, were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park to fail.
I must say, however, that I have profound misgivings about the new clause. First, many of the terms are imprecise. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that they were all common- law terms. That is true, but we are putting common-law terms in statute law, and quite often that leads to a difficult situation for courts and judges to provide decisions around. It gets much more complicated in that kind of environment, because they are looking for a steer—what did Parliament really intend by putting a common-law term into statute law?
For instance, new clause 3(5) sets out the condition that
“the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—
(a) not supported by the evidence”.
I think that is a fairly readily understandable concept; however, subsection (5) continues:
“or…trivial or vexatious in nature”.
I would suggest that they are two different categories and have generally been treated differently in common-law decision making. Yes, there is case law that relates to that—sometimes the court has said to the Crown Prosecution Service, “I’m sorry, this should not be considered because it is inadequately serious.” However, it is difficult to import that into this kind of decision.
Then we have the phrase
“brought for party political purposes”.
I cannot conceive of a political argument that I have not advanced for a party political purpose. Maybe that makes me immensely partisan—[Interruption]—although I think that every Member who just said, “You said it,” or, “Hear, hear,” was being partisan in the very way they advanced that argument, or at least one could argue that. That is my central point: anybody could argue that any argument was being made for a party political or not for a party political purpose. Guessing what was in the minds of the 500 people who brought the case—500 minds, incidentally, that the court would have to consider in deciding whether something had been done for party political purposes, not one mind—makes a bit of a mockery of that phrase.
There is also a problem with what, precisely, it is that the court is deciding that the Member would have done. New clause 3(4) says:
“The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted”—
I do not like that word for a start, which seems remarkably American in tone—
“himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”
It seems to me that it would be almost impossible ever to adjudicate on such a term. How does one know that the misconduct is of such a degree that the public’s trust in the MP could or should be abandoned? We might be able to determine whether it had been, but I cannot see how a court could determine that the misconduct was of such a degree that the public should have lost their trust in the Member of Parliament, even if they might not have done so, other than the 500 people before the court. And what is this “reasonable excuse”? The concept of “reasonable” is well used in the courts, but what about reasonable excuse? Normally, the reasons for appeal are presented in statute law; in this case it is just a “reasonable excuse,” and we cannot possibly arrive at a decision about what that might be.
Affordable Homes Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Watkinson(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s voting record in Committee, he is absolutely right on that point.
Another problem has arisen. For years, in order to tackle antisocial behaviour, local authorities and social landlords have often tried to limit the number of young families in a development. They can no longer make that judgment and the consequence has been a new rise in antisocial behaviour in areas where there are now too many young families, all because of the bedroom tax.
The National Housing Federation made it absolutely clear last year that there simply were not enough houses for people to move to. I do not know why Ministers and other Conservative Members do not understand that. In the north of England, families with a spare room outnumber overcrowded families by three to one. In other words, we would have to move thousands of families thousands of miles across the United Kingdom if the aim of using the housing stock more efficiently, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster suggested, were to be met by this policy.
Dame Angela Watkinson
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that people in work who are just above the threshold and therefore not entitled to any benefits have to choose to live in an area and a size of property that they can afford? Is it not only fair that people in receipt of taxpayer-funded benefit should have to make those same decisions?
Chris Bryant
That is true. Many people who are in that situation are in socially affordable housing, some of which is local authority or former local authority accommodation. However, I do not see how that militates against the fundamental problem that although there might be plenty of housing for people to move to in Conservative seats in some parts of the south-east, there simply is not enough in the areas where the greatest number of people are affected by the bedroom tax. So unless the hon. Lady wants to move thousands of people from the north of England into constituencies such as hers, there will continue to be a problem.
What are the wider effects of the policy? We already know that, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s original announcement that the disabled would not be affected by it, two thirds of those affected have a disability of some kind. Nurses, members of the armed forces and families with sons or daughters in the armed forces have also been affected.
There is also clear evidence that countless families are cutting back on household essentials or running up debts. The Government’s own evaluation—not an evaluation made up by anyone else—states that 50% of claimants reported cutting back on what they deemed to be household essentials in order to pay the bedroom tax. More than a quarter of claimants—26%—said that they had borrowed money to pay it, mostly from family and friends, while 3% had borrowed money on a credit card, 3% had taken out payday loans, 10% had used savings and 9% had been given money from other members of their family. That is a devastating record. It shows the poverty into which the Government seem deliberately to be pushing people.
Six out of 10 households affected by the bedroom tax are now in arrears. At the moment, social landlords have decided to hold off from evicting such tenants, but there will come a point at which they will have to make the difficult decision whether to allow the situation to continue or to remove those people.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for St Ives also made the point about people in work who are in receipt of housing benefit, because the number of hours does not add up for them. There is a real danger that if they are forced to move to properties that are not easily accessible from their work, are too far away or where no family support network is in place, they simply will not be able to stay in work. We, thus, end up shoving up the welfare bill rather than tackling the real problems in welfare. That is far from an invented problem; it is a very real problem, which I suspect many hon. Members will have encountered. Constituents, especially single parents, will have come to them saying, “I have a job. It is close to where I live. It means I can turn up when there is an emergency at school. All those problems are solved. But if I have to move to a property 5, 10 or 20 miles away, I simply will not be able to stay in work.” That is the kind of problem the Government are coming up against.
Dame Angela Watkinson
I am most grateful. I am very pleased to report that I have not had one complaint from a constituent with a disability who has been asked to move property, and I have great confidence in my local authority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an adaptation to a property could range from a handrail going up to the front door for somebody who needs to get up some steps, which would not affect their need for a spare bedroom, to major adaptations such as having widened doorways to accommodate a wheelchair, hoists and stairlifts? For that reason, it is right that this should be a discretionary matter and not a statutory one.
Chris Bryant
I cannot explain why the hon. Lady has not had constituents come to her about the matter. Perhaps it is because of her voting record on the bedroom tax. Constituents may feel that they would not get as warm a hearing from her as they might from someone else. I am sure that she is a very good constituency MP. Perhaps it is because the needs in her constituency are rather different from those in other constituencies. But let me say gently to her that I know from talking to my Labour colleagues, a number of Liberal Democrats and Members of other minority parties that the number of people who have come to our constituency surgeries or who have got in touch by phone or e-mail about the bedroom tax and other issues is very high. Many of those are people who are disabled and who have adaptations. In fact, a large proportion involves people who have friends and family in the armed forces.
Future of the BBC
Debate between Chris Bryant and Angela Watkinson
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
As I am the last but one speaker, it is almost inevitable that everything I say will be repetitious, so I will not speak for too long. This debate was expected to focus on three main issues: the budget and the licence fee freeze; the failed digital media initiative; and the Savile and three associated inquiries. I will comment on those briefly before moving on to the specific point that I wish to make.
The BBC is a bit of a curate’s egg: it is remarkably good in parts, so in fairness I shall pay tribute first to its many successes. The quality of BBC drama, its wildlife, sport, history and comedy programmes and so much else is acknowledged internationally, and rightly so. That is something of which the BBC can be proud.
The BBC has a budget of about £3.5 billion and of course, like all public services, it thinks it needs more money but, like all other public services, it has to make decisions to reduce its running costs and protect the licence fee. At £145.50, the licence fee is already difficult for many people to afford, even in instalments. Recent accounts of embarrassingly high senior management salaries, severance packages and relocation to Salford payments would make any increase in the licence fee absolutely unjustifiable in the eyes of the public. There were 91 exceptions to the rules involving relocation payments of more than £600,000, with a very dilatory approach to recording them. The BBC review of that is still awaited.
The digital media initiative involved a catastrophic loss of nearly £100 million. Nobody knew it was going to be unsuccessful, but it was and that underlines the need for the BBC to find savings from within its budget.
The Savile inquiry and the need for the subsequent Pollard, Smith, MacQuarrie and Respect at Work reviews have left the BBC with a damaged reputation. There are still unanswered questions about who knew what, who colluded in the cover-up and who turned a blind eye to Jimmy Savile’s extensive activities. Public confidence will have to be regained gradually over time through the BBC’s future performance.
I want to make a specific point about news broadcasting. There is an aspect of BBC culture that I find worrying and that I believe requires the attention of the BBC Trust and possibly the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Committee Chairman, mention that there will be an investigation into the future of the BBC in the new year. I hope that my comments might find their way into the Committee’s deliberations.
As a publicly funded broadcasting company, the BBC has a duty to provide balanced information and not political opinion, which it gives routinely. Mass communication through radio and television gives the BBC immense power from the ability to influence its audiences and form public opinion. Television news bulletins, in particular, are a main source of information for a large number of people and the content is assumed to be non-selective and factual. I know that from the contact I have from my constituents who complain to me about what they have heard and seen.
The personal political views of news presenters are often transparent when they conduct interviews. Interviewees with whom they do not agree are talked over and interrupted, and another question is asked before the first has been answered in an aggressive style that contrasts noticeably with the respectful, unchallenging approach shown to favoured interviewees.
Chris Bryant
I have often been interrupted by many a journalist on the BBC, although never more frequently than by Adam Boulton on Sky. The hon. Lady seems to be making an allegation of bias at the BBC. Can she give a specific example of a broadcaster whom she thinks has been biased or an occasion on which that has happened?
Dame Angela Watkinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was utterly predictable. I am not going to name any individual, but I have seen countless examples of that difference in style between the treatment of one politician and another because of their political party.
Unrepresentative individuals are often invited to demonstrate an adverse effect of a new government policy with glaring omissions in the presentation. That would be perfectly acceptable if another person were also invited who would demonstrate the benefit of that policy, but they are not. Both sides of the argument should be presented and it is not a legitimate role of a publicly funded broadcasting company to show political bias.
The BBC informs, educates and entertains, but what it should not do is misinform by omission. The BBC Trust has 12 trustees, independent from the BBC executive board. The Trust and governing body make decisions in the best interests of licence fee payers and protect the independence of the BBC. The Trust reviews performance of all services, so that must include news, and establishes protocols, policies and guidance that govern performance. Let me quote from the BBC website:
“The Trust must act in the public interest. We seek evidence to inform our discussions and reach our decisions through a mix of factual analysis and judgement. Governing a creative organisation on behalf of the public whose BBC it is allows for no other approach.”
News presentation should be exempt from creativity, and factual analysis and judgment should find their basis in political neutrality. I believe that the BBC long ago gave up any pretence of neutrality. In the run-up to the local and European elections next year and the general election in 2015, the style of the BBC’s news service needs to be reviewed to ensure even-handed and fair treatment of all political parties and to introduce a party politically neutral culture in its future news broadcasting. That is in the public interest.