Standards and Privileges

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I have concerns about the question that the report raises of consistency in dealing with individual cases. It would be wrong if we did not raise these matters on the Floor of the House, because the concerns—certainly those of Labour Members—about how these reports are dealt with must be addressed if we are to deal with similar issues in the future. I make no criticism of the Committee, the commissioner or anyone else.

The conclusion was reached that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) had behaved in an exemplary fashion since being placed under investigation, but I hope that any Member of this House would behave in that way and co-operate fully in such circumstances. Having spoken to some hon. Members who have been under investigation, I received the impression that they did exactly that.

I have one or two questions about consistency, which is all that I am bothered about. I understand that at least one case went to the Committee with the recommendation that it be referred to the Metropolitan police. What criteria were used to reach that judgment? I do not understand that, and I want to understand, because I am concerned about how these reports are written and how different Members are dealt with. What criteria does the commissioner use when he decides whether a case should go to the Metropolitan police?

Also, how many Members have claimed expenses without submitting receipts up to the £250 limit? I understand that some Members who have been investigated by the Metropolitan police and taken to court have been prosecuted for breaching that rule. How many of them, when found to be in breach of that rule by the commissioner, have been allowed to pay the money back?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The report states that Mr Laws stopped claiming when the rules relating to the maximum amount changed. Did my hon. Friend find it strange that the reason he gave for not putting in receipts was to disguise this relationship with his landlord, even though the landlord’s name was on the tenancy agreement?

[Clive Efford]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but if he will forgive me, I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the case against the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The concerns that the report has raised for me are general ones about how we should deal with everyone who comes under investigation, because, let us face it, any of us could come under investigation if someone made a complaint against us, and we would all want to be dealt with under the same rules.

Who has been allowed to pay back money and on what criteria? On what criteria have they been referred to the Metropolitan police, and on what criteria have they been dealt with by the Committee and had a penalty imposed on them, as recommended to us today? Does the fact that Members offer to pay the money back make a difference? This report refers to the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil paid money back, which seems to have been taken in his favour. Have other Members made such offers and, if so, has that affected how they have been dealt with?

I have read the report, and I have highlighted several passages that appear to be inconsistent. I find it difficult to understand, for example, how someone can be a lodger in a house to which they have contributed £100,000 for its purchase and can then state to the Committee that they have no financial interest in that house and that the financial interests of the landlord and the lodger are completely separate. I find that sort of thing very confusing and very inconsistent, and I want to know what criteria are being applied to MPs when these matters come before the commissioner and the Committee. There are serious inconsistencies in what is happening here, and I believe that they are worthy of further investigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The reason that I pause is that I am not sure whether responsibility for salmon is a devolved matter—[Interruption.] It is devolved; I see a nod from the Opposition Benches. Sadly, therefore, I cannot organise a debate on salmon in Scotland, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to a more generic point about resources flowing from Westminster to the north. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to debate that when the Scotland Bill returns.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the coalition agreement? I think that the country has a right to know exactly what state that document is now in. The Health and Social Care Bill is now at a pausing, listening and reflecting stage, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was severely reformed by the Lords last night and, on Tuesday, we had the debacle of the statement on off-quota higher education places. If the coalition document were brought to the Floor of the House, both Government parties could table amendments to it and we could debate in public exactly what is happening to the agreement and understand it in greater detail.

[Sir George Young]

On the various issues, we had a debate on the national health service on Monday, and I indicated a few moments ago that we would be seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The coalition is in good shape; we are getting on with strong, decisive, united government, which is what this country needs.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The Government would welcome with open arms any opportunity to debate the successes. My hon. Friend reminds the House that 1.1 million people have been taken right out of tax and that a number of other measures have been introduced—for example, to safeguard the interests of those who have retired with a triple lock on pensions, and the other measures announced in the Budget. We had an opportunity in the two days that we spent on the Finance (No. 3) Bill to talk about some of those issues, but if we can arrange it, I would welcome any opportunity to continue with that agenda. I remind the House that we are still paying £120 million a day in interest on the debt that we inherited from the outgoing Government.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will we have a statement following the outcome of today’s referendum? Even before the polls have closed, the Deputy Prime Minister is under attack for breaking yet another pledge. He said that he would not get involved in the yes campaign, but when he saw it ahead in the polls he became involved, and it suffered from dead Clegg bounce—and now it looks as if it will not succeed today. So can we have a statement—and can it be made by the Deputy Prime Minister, because we really want to take in earnest whatever is said from the Dispatch Box?

[Sir George Young]

The best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is that the Government have no plans to make a statement on the outcome of today’s elections.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

A convention has developed in the House that before troops are committed, the House should have an opportunity to debate the matter. We propose to observe that convention except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. As with the Iraq war and other events, we propose to give the House the opportunity to debate the matter before troops are committed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate as part of the consultation on the Government’s Green Paper on special educational needs and disabilities? There is widespread concern that the cuts imposed by the coalition on local authorities will reduce the money available to parents to control budgets. If there is no money in the budgets, there is no control for parents and that will be nothing but a con trick on them. We need to have a debate in the House so we can represent our constituents’ views.

[Sir George Young]

I welcome yesterday’s publication of the consultation document. The consultation will take place over four months. I emphasise that it is not a cost-cutting exercise; it is about having a much better regime for children who need support in schools and about giving parents more of a say. Crucially, it is about bringing together health, education and care in one package and, we hope, having a more user-friendly, streamlined approach than we have at the moment. I would welcome a debate on the SEN statement. That might be an appropriate issue for the Backbench Business Committee to consider or for debate in Westminster Hall. Yesterday’s announcement was warmly welcomed by those who take an interest in this issue and recognise the need for reform.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

We made a commitment that the previous Government refused to make, namely to introduce a House business committee within three years of this Parliament. I want to evaluate the work of the Backbench Business Committee at the end of its first year and then to take forward the discussions on how we might roll that into a House business committee that would embrace both the Backbench Business Committee and the Government business managers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on readiness for future spells of severe cold weather, snow and ice? We had the report from David Quarmby, published on 21 December, on the response to the previous spell of cold weather. My constituents suffered chaos on Network South East during the recent period of bad weather, and it is right that this House should hear a statement on what the Government are doing to ensure that we do not have that chaos again in future.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Secretary of State made a statement just before we rose for the Christmas recess. The country is, I think, in a much more resilient position this winter than in the past couple of years, but we are not complacent. The Secretary of State, in a written statement on 21 December, informed the House of the publication of the report to which the hon. Gentleman just referred. The Secretary of State undertook, on behalf of his Department, to do further work on how well highways authorities and transport operators in England coped with the cold weather between 24 November and 9 December. I cannot promise a statement, but I know that the Secretary of State will want to keep the House informed.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the commencement of oil production in Ghana. I hope very much that the revenue will be used for the benefit of all the citizens of that country, and will be managed with a view to Ghana’s future prosperity.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to disfranchise students in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. Will he join me in encouraging the relevant Secretary of State to make a statement to the House today, so that, before the Christmas holidays, students are made aware that they can register for postal votes in that by-election?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman was worried about the timing of the by-election, he could have registered his objection an hour ago when he had an opportunity to do so. He did not, and we heard earlier that Labour Members wanted to “bring it on”. No one has been disfranchised.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are people chuntering from a sedentary position and urging the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) to name the people who set off the fire alarms. That would be entirely disorderly and we are not going to have it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are ahead of me, because I was given the impression that the culprits were present tonight. If that were the case, I was going to ask you to give them the opportunity to stand up and own up to that heinous crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I will consider that to be a point of humour, because it certainly was not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: the House would be setting a very bad example to young people if it were to pass the motion tonight.

[Clive Efford]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is dangerous for Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and particularly on the Government side, to allow the Executive to truncate debate or the consideration of a Bill is that it limits the scope of Back Benchers to influence Front Benchers? He will recall that when we were setting the cap that we will discuss in the debate tomorrow—the debate—which we are now debating, it was Labour Back Benchers who threatened not to support their Government, and made them set it lower. We are not hearing anything of that sort from those on the Government Benches tonight. If the desire is there to make a change, it is up to Government Back Benchers, especially Liberal Democrat MPs.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tomorrow the eyes of the House will be on Liberal Democrat Members in particular. Everybody knows that how they choose to vote will determine whether this proposal goes through or not.

[Clive Efford]

And whether they make that change.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Back Benchers have the opportunity tonight to decide whether the motion will be passed. That is why I hope that as many as possible will join us in the Lobby to vote it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you were listening intently to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who called for more time to allow Back Benchers to participate in this debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. I am sure that everybody heard exactly what the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In the light of some of the exposures on WikiLeaks, may we have a debate on the 22 days when the coalition was formed? May I make the helpful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps we should set aside the Standing Orders of the House and have Mervyn King lead the debate on behalf of the Government? In that way, we could at least hold to account someone who played a major role in forming the coalition Government.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman said that that would be a helpful suggestion, but I am not sure that I agree with him.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

That question is slightly beyond my pay grade, but my hon. Friend has made a strong case for a debate on rural broadband. I too represent a rural constituency, and I know that it is vital for those who live in rural areas to be able to compete on the same terms as those in towns and cities. I think that the issue is a strong candidate for a debate, but perhaps not in Government time.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on the subject of debates set up by the Backbench Business Committee? The Committee’s Standing Orders make no reference to the Committee’s having responsibility for those debates. A dangerous precedent is being set, because those on the Opposition Front Bench who are responsible for holding the Government to account cannot do so. The Government have avoided arranging the debates in Government time and Opposition Front Benchers cannot make representations to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are thus dodging the issue. May we have those debates in Government time?

[Sir George Young]

Labour Members must make it absolutely clear at some point whether or not they agree with the Wright Committee’s recommendations. They supported them throughout the last Parliament, although towards the end of that Parliament they did not implement them by setting up the Backbench Business Committee.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Wright Committee’s report, he will see that it makes a distinction between Government business and House business, and makes it clear that the debates to which he has referred are House business. It is up to the Backbench Business Committee, which has been allotted 35 days, to find time for those debates—if it wants to hold them—in competition with other bids. We cannot allow a position in which the Government, having allotted 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee, are then held responsible for all the subjects included in the transfer.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. The coalition Government intend to introduce, during this Session, a draft Bill to address that matter.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is held in high regard on both sides of the House and by all parties. As someone who holds the rights of the House in high esteem, does he share my eagerness to see information that has been given to the House corrected by the Secretary of State for Health? In Tuesday’s Health questions, the Secretary of State said that spending on the national health service will increase in real terms even if the social care budget given to local authorities is removed, but the Library and the Nuffield Trust have both stated that that is incorrect. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to return to the House to correct that misinformation?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind words that prefaced his question. I shall raise with the Secretary of State for Health the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, implying that information was incorrectly given to the House, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take appropriate action when he has read this morning’s Hansard.