Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

In the previous Parliament we had many debates on rogue private parking enforcement companies. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would consider a debate. My hon. Friend could also apply for an Adjournment debate. I think they would be well attended.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on water recycling projects? The project at Havant Thicket is of great significance to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), but it is also of national significance. The technology is novel to the UK and it is important that this House has the opportunity to debate aspects around safety, the environment and public confidence.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

These Houses of Parliament are falling apart faster than they can be fixed. All the old fire, heating, drainage, mechanical and electrical systems need replacing, ditto the sewage system, which dates back to 1888, and there is asbestos throughout. The cost of maintenance projects and ongoing work has doubled in three years to £127 million a year.

The fire at Notre-Dame in 2019 reminds us of the importance of protecting the world’s most treasured and symbolic historic buildings. Our 150-year-old building has a floor plan the size of 16 football pitches, with 1,100 rooms, 100 staircases, three miles of passageways, four floors and 65 different levels. It houses 11,000 historic artefacts. Restoring this place is an enormous undertaking. It is also a duty—a legal duty for us, but a moral duty too, to protect this heritage asset and our liberal democratic institutions.

What it is not is something that will benefit Members here today. We do not yet know quite how long the project will take—that will come in the full plan that will come before the House in early 2023—but we do know that it will be a substantial period of time, completing sometime in the 2030s. MPs average 13 or 14 years’ service, and the average current MP has already done six of those, so the sobering truth is that, though many colleagues here will be around during the most disruptive times of the restoration, most of us will not be here when it is finished. None the less, as the shadow Leader of the House said, it falls to this generation of parliamentarians to ensure that the necessary work gets done and that we secure the future of our Parliament, and the building that houses it, one of the free world’s most iconic.

As MPs, we are answerable to our constituents. This is their Parliament; we are just passing through. Especially at this time of enormous economic and fiscal strain, we are acutely conscious of the need for best value. Given all that had changed since the publication of the independent options appraisal in 2014 and the Joint Committee report in 2016, to which the Leader of the House referred, it was right to look again at the plans. The recent strategic review concluded that vacating the building while works take place remains the best approach in terms of both time and cost, but that we can reduce the length of time away, with more done before MPs and peers leave through a more phased approach and possibly through the use of a cofferdam for access to the works from the river.

On the question of where to relocate during the works, that review looked at—or, in many cases, relooked at—41 different options in 20 different locations. When we talk about relocating, we tend to think first about this debating Chamber, but the footprint just of the Committee rooms, for example, is about four times the size of this debating Chamber and these two Lobbies, let alone the displaced office space. All told, on my rough calculation—colleagues are welcome to check this—the total space used by the Commons in the Palace of Westminster is 47 times the space of this Chamber. It is the combination of the need for a lot of space with the huge premium there is on being within the existing secure perimeter, for all sorts of clear reasons, that points to Richmond House, possibly in combination with other parts of what is known as the Northern Estate, which is better known to colleagues as Norman Shaw North and South and the other buildings in that part of the estate.

There are trade-offs and compromises that could be made to make the decant phase cost less and, in the time to come, we have to focus sharply on those. I stress that we are talking here about a temporary period during the works. Probably the three biggest compromises that could be made to reduce costs are, first, accepting having a slightly smaller Chamber and/or reconfiguring the voting Lobby, because although the Chamber may be a small fraction of the overall space requirement, its dimensions as a single room are a big constraining factor in the relocation; secondly, a willingness, to a degree, to rearrange our Committee business and other business to reduce the amount of space requirement; and thirdly, having fewer MPs’ staff having to be accommodated on the estate itself. Each of those three things—by the way, there will be others—would give more flexibility to the decant and so could make the temporary siting less costly. It will be vital over the coming months to hear further from colleagues on such compromises that could be made to reduce cost.

Notwithstanding the need to vacate, in the next phase, towards the full plan and business case, the programme will also examine the possibility of some continued presence —I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to it as a maintained presence. Essentially, it is the question: could we keep this Chamber operating here during the works, even with other Commons functions being relocated elsewhere within the secure perimeter? If that were possible, my personal view is that it would be very valuable, because it would minimise the disruption to our liberal democratic institutions. But it is clearly not without risk or challenge, given some of the safety considerations, with the flow of large numbers of people, particularly when there is a Division, and as MPs, we must never forget that we are a relatively small minority of the people who work in these buildings. There are also all the other functions that today go with the operation of the Chamber, such as the Table Office, the Vote Office and so on. It is not guaranteed to be possible, but it is important to investigate thoroughly any possibility. We will have to look at the relative cost of it and the timings, as against a full decant and all the practicalities.

The cost of the decant is one thing. A much bigger consideration is the cost of the project itself—the thing we are decanting for. Here, again, there are choices, trade-offs and compromises. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a question of priorities. This project is called restoration and renewal, and clearly there is a balance between those two things. We must restore, but how much renewal is right for taxpayer value in aspects such as visitor access or the education function? In the approach towards the full business case, the programme will be working up a bare minimum option—what is essential to arrest the decay of the buildings—but also conducting value analysis in 14 categories, from logistics operations to environmental and net zero aims to visitor facilities, to see where it may make sense from a value perspective to go beyond that minimum.

Again, it is vital to hear from colleagues on these matters and for us all to consider that they do involve trade-offs. There are many things that we may want to see for the future of the seat of our democracy, but we have to consider their cost, what is essential and what can be done without. It is too easy to say, “We want X, Y and Z, and we want the thing to come in at the lowest possible cost.” Ultimately, this comes down to specifics, not generalities, and making physical trade-offs.

Debates such as this are one way—and an important way—for Members to make their points, and there will be a range of other channels over the next few months for engagement with colleagues on these important questions. Four of us in the House sit on the Sponsor Body board. We will hear shortly from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) also sits on the board; he apologises for being unable to be here, as he is sitting on a Bill Committee. We are keen to hear from all colleagues on their views.

In the main, it will not be us who will see the end results of restoration and renewal, but many colleagues here today will operate in a time of significant change and disruption, and we need to ensure that MPs are still able properly and fully to serve their constituents and scrutinise Government throughout that time. We need to ensure that this centre of our nation’s democracy and symbol of democracy for the world is restored for future generations. A decision has been dodged repeatedly over the years, and that has made this more expensive today than it would have been. If we dodge it again, it will become more costly again. The most cost-effective thing to do is to act, and now is the time we must ensure that it is done at the best possible value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is a lot of what the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said that I agree with. Let us get on with it. Let us come together in this. I commend both the Leader of the House for his approach and his speech and the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). They both spoke in a very outgoing, moderate and sensible way.

This is not a debate between decant and not decant. It is not a debate with, on one side, pragmatic modernisers who want to do what is right and, on the other side, stuffy traditionalists who just care about staying in a Palace that they love. It is far more complex than that. So it is not a debate about decant or not decant—it is about how we get on with the job of restoring this Palace and not having a gold-plate operation. That is what I want to address my arguments towards.

I have to deal, in that regard, with the present proposal—the Northern Estate programme as it is. This is the entire demolition of Richmond House, and this is where I follow what the right hon. Gentleman just said; I would argue that it is financially wasteful, environmentally unsound and not necessary.

Let me look at this in a bit more detail and go back to the original Joint Committee report, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House signed. It said that

“a temporary Chamber could be established in its”—

that is, Richmond House’s—

“inner courtyard and the rest of the House of Commons’ core operations could be consolidated in and around Portcullis House and the Northern Estate”.

The Northern Estate programme later found that measurements of the Commons Chamber, including the exact footprint of Division Lobbies with the oriel bay windows, would not fit in the courtyard, so the Northern Estate programme claims that this requires the entire grade II* listed building to be demolished, except for its façade, and for total replacement with a new permanent building.

On 31 January 2018, the Leader of the House said that

“the conclusion that we came to, preliminarily favouring a complete decant, was based on the assumption that a temporary Chamber could be put up in Richmond House.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 885.]

Demolition of Richmond House is a completely different cost basis and I, for one, would not have come to that conclusion, had we known the true picture. The possibility of demolishing Richmond House is not mentioned at all in the Joint Committee report.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right, of course, about the historical sequence, but I hope that it is of some reassurance if I tell him that, since I have been involved in the Sponsor Body, I can honestly say that I have not met a single person, either in this House or on the restoration and renewal programme, who now believes that it is desirable to make the full demolition of Richmond House that he alludes to. We have to cut our cloth and, as I said in my remarks—and indeed, as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) just said—we have to work within what we have, and we need to work out what compromises we need in order to do that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is extremely helpful because, as I said, I have to work with what we have at the moment, and from what the spokesperson for the Sponsor Body now says, we seem to have moved on from the demolition of Richmond House. This will be of enormous comfort to the heritage organisations such as SAVE, with which I have been working very closely. If we are looking at a grade II* listed building, even the lowest level of listing is defined as

“warranting every effort to preserve”

these buildings—that is according to Historic England—and Richmond House is above that. It was, of course, one of the most important public buildings created in the 1980s.

I can cut short my speech, because I appear to be on a bit of a winning streak. I do not really need to quote all the various points that have been made by numerous distinguished architects and historic buildings organisations in favour of Richmond House, which was put up only 30 years ago. Of course, demolishing it would be environmentally unsound.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to the Sponsor Body board, and note and appreciate the work of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). On the Sponsor Body board, we work as parliamentarians on a cross-party and both Houses basis, joining outside experts in overseeing and scrutinising the work of the Sponsor Body, which in turn is there to act on Parliament’s behalf to ensure that the project is done in the public interest and, crucially, at the best value for taxpayer money. As parliamentary members, we can also act as a channel between colleagues here and the restoration and renewal programme. Of course, we are Parliament’s representatives on the restoration and renewal Sponsor Body, not the Sponsor Body’s representatives in Parliament.

We do not yet know exactly how long this project is going to take in total—that will come in the full plan, which will be presented to this House—but we do know it will be a substantial period of time. In recent history, MPs have averaged 13 or 14 years of service, and the average current MP has already done six. So even on a rather optimistic view of our own electoral future fortunes, most of us are not going to be here when this is finished. But it is to this generation of parliamentarians that it falls to ensure that the necessary work gets done and that we secure the future of our Parliament and the building that houses it. There has just been a strategic review of the project and the approach, and work progresses now towards the full costed plan that will come before this House in early 2023. It is important work and this is an important phase, and I am keen to welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to the Sponsor Body board.

Restoration and Renewal

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I am very grateful that time has been found before recess for this important debate. I should mention, as the shadow Leader of the House said, that, along with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), I am one of the four Members of Parliament sitting on the Sponsor Body.

The works to the Houses of Parliament remain critical, but clearly a lot else has changed. It is prudent to review the current approach at this stage, reaffirming the commitment to taxpayer value. This is obviously our workplace, but actually about three quarters of the people working in the Houses of Parliament are neither Members of Parliament nor peers. There are 650 of us, but approximately 1 million people visit this place every year. This place is the focal point of our constitution and, for the wider world, a permanent symbol of liberal democracy. The Houses of Parliament form a democratic asset that we hold in trust.

The median tenure of an MP in modern times—notwithstanding my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—is around 13 years, and of those 13 years, the median current Member has already had about five. Even on the very shortest scenario for restoration and renewal, it would be something like a decade before the works were completed, so the sobering reality is that many current MPs just will not be around to see them finished. On the longer scenarios, hardly any current MPs would be around. So this is not about us. We are trustees of this place, and we clearly have to do what is right, not what happens to be convenient for us, as its current temporary occupants.

The current at patch-and-mend approach is failing. According to the National Audit Office, Parliament spent £369 million in the past three years on projects to keep the buildings in use, and there is still a repairs backlog of £1 billion.

[Chris Bryant]

When I was on the Joint Committee and chair of the Finance Committee, we wanted additional work to be done now because that was clearly important—for instance, on the cloisters, which are among the most beautiful parts of the whole estate—but we constantly found that there simply was not enough physical capacity on the estate to allow us to get the work done now. Is there not a danger that further delay will result in the backlog getting bigger and bigger?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is undeniably right about the effect of the passage of time, and of course that is all reflected in the outline business case. The fire at Notre Dame was a stark reminder of the importance of protecting the world’s most treasured historic buildings. Here, the risk of fire is so acute that fire wardens patrol 24 hours a day. This House rightly recognised the significance of that terrible event and passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 shortly afterwards. Colleagues will know that a vast amount of work is also needed to replace all the heating, ventilation, water, drainage and electrical systems.

It has been almost five years since the plan was drawn up, and much has changed since, including two general elections, our leaving the European Union and, of course, the current pandemic, which is not only illustrating the possibility of different ways of working but placing severe new demands on the public purse. There is also more evidence now about the state of the buildings, through extensive modelling and surveys, and more is known about the cost and the challenge of building like-for-like temporary Chambers. As the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, the bodies charged with overseeing and delivering this work have become substantive in the last few months, and it is now appropriate to review where we are and how we should proceed.

There have always been the same three overall pivotal questions that affect the length and cost of the works involved. The first relates to the balance between restoration and renewal—in other words, the extent to which the project goes beyond just fixing the buildings and embarks on improving things. Examples include disability access, which is currently woeful, and various other enhancements. The second relates to pace: should we proceed at a slow speed, estimated at some 30 years, working around current operations with the extended disruption and risks that that entails, or should we move out, in whole or in part, for a period? That would expedite the project and could lower the overall cost, but it would bring that cost forward. The third relates to how closely, during any decant period, Parliament’s physical layout and function has to be replicated and to what extent the location has to be kept close to the Government Departments we are here to scrutinise and hold to account.

Value for money and affordability have always been vital, but they have become even more pressing as the full economic impact of the post-covid environment becomes more evident. Of course, we can all say what we want to see retained and what we want to see enhanced, and that is important, but for this review to be effective in delivering value for money—assuming that we decant somewhere—we also need to say what we could do without. There are some factors that could make a material difference, and I encourage hon. Members, in this debate and when making submissions to the review, to consider these factors in particular when thinking about the decant.

First, while in-person voting is a long-standing feature of our system, how sacred is the exact system and the layout of our Lobbies? Seeking to replicate the current Lobby configuration is a significant factor in the space requirements for a temporary Chamber. Secondly, what flexibilities could there be in the numbers of MPs’ staff who have to be accommodated on the estate? 

More flexibility on that could mean lower costs.

Yesterday’s letter from the Prime Minister to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned, called for the full range of options to be looked at, from a minimum safe viable product to fundamental refurbishment, and the different possibilities of full decant, partial decant and remaining in situ—all, of course, with costs kept to a minimum. These different approaches have already been analysed and will be re-evaluated in the light of what more we now know. I reassure colleagues that that does not mean only looking at one decant option. The suggestion to examine decant locations beyond Westminster has not been part of the programme’s mandate to date, and the programme will of course be discussing this further with Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we keep opening up all these other options and look at starting from first basics on new ones, we will simply delay the work, and the cost of doing that alone will be enormous?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member makes a good point, which does not surprise me given her position on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right, of course, about some of the trade-offs, but the timetable for the review is quite an aggressive one. For analysis to be effective and for realistic options to be presented back, it will be necessary iteratively to narrow down those options in a very short time.

I stress that the views of Members are very important to the process. Today’s debate is a big and central part of that, and beyond this I encourage colleagues to make a submission to the review—in fuller detail, if they wish—by 7 August. The review team will be working through the summer, will be subject to challenge by an independent panel, as was mentioned previously, and plans to report back in the autumn.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is quite incapable of keeping quiet, even for a moment. His agitation and his degree of excitement may be slightly theatrical on this occasion.

On the ISC, as always, that will be set up in due course. It would be wrong to be “Russian” these things—[Laughter]—as I am sure the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) appreciates. [Interruption.] No, it was not, actually; it was quite deliberate.

On the Cumberlege review, I actually gave evidence to that review in relation to Primodos. This is an opportunity for me to pay the greatest tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has campaigned absolutely tirelessly. I first met the hon. Lady when we were both elected in 2010 and had offices opposite each other, and she took up this issue when nobody else was really interested. She has transformed people’s thinking about it, and I look forward with great interest to what Baroness Cumberlege has to say about Primodos. It is a very important issue.

Going back to some of the other questions, the right hon. Member for Walsall South is a kind and generous person, and her sympathy for Cabinet Ministers having to queue is much appreciated by my right hon. Friends, who have to take on these onerous things which are otherwise unknown across the country. Our constituents never have to queue for anything because life is so smooth and easy, but she appreciates that right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen having to queue is so burdensome and tough, and makes us realise that we are really earning our living as we stand in a queue. Remarkably, it takes almost exactly the same time to pass through the Division Lobbies as it does when we are using the Lobbies without social distancing. The speed with which we got through them earlier this week was pretty much the normal speed and therefore things are working: Government business is getting through and scrutiny is taking place. I am not as kindly or as soft-hearted as the right hon. Lady, and I think a Cabinet Minister queuing for a few minutes is no bad thing, and probably spiritually enlightening and uplifting.

The right hon. Lady referred to renters who have lost income. Emergency provisions were made: £1 billion has been made available to help people who are renting. The Government are very conscious of the need to protect people who are in the private rented sector.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned the Prime Minister not making a speech in the House, but making it outside the House. However, the Prime Minister came to the House just a week before and made a statement. We are having a statement on Wednesday next week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have been assiduous in maintaining the ministerial code’s requirement to make major announcements to the House first, and this is part of the natural process of government.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I know the whole House will want to join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in their thoughts and prayers for our hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).

A lot has changed since plans were first put forward for Parliament’s restoration and renewal, and it is appropriate for the newly formed sponsor body now to review those plans. May we have a debate on the plans before the recess as a means for all hon. and right hon Members to take part fully in that process?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking responsibility by joining the board. He is right that this House ought to have an opportunity to have its say on the future of the Palace of Westminster, which it is right to protect and safeguard for future generations. When the last Parliament considered this matter, it did so on the basis of assumptions that are now five years old, and it is absolutely proper that the sponsor body and delivery authority are conducting a strategic review to reconsider their approach. I would urge Members to consider submitting evidence to the review, and to be mindful that the price tags widely reported are also now five years old. There are rumours that the potential costs now far exceed the £4 billion estimate made in 2015. We must be clear that when Parliament takes its final decision on how to proceed, there can be no blank cheque for this work. The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 specifically requires the sponsor body to have regard to value for money.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Of course I will raise the point with my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Second Reading debate will offer an opportunity to debate the principles of the Bill, but the point he raises might also profitably be pursued then and in Committee.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There is now wide recognition that character and resilience are as important as GCSEs for young people as they enter adulthood. May we have a debate on what that actually means and implies and what more can be done in and out of school to help young people develop those key traits?

[Mr Lansley]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy not only that our Education Secretary has said, with verve and commitment, that he wishes to build activities in state schools that mirror those that often occur in independent schools, but that, only today, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), has followed his lead, as he is sometimes wont to do. Reinforcements such as extending school sport support and support for the development of cadet forces in state schools are just some examples of the ways in which we can help build character. Finally—sorry to go on, Mr Speaker—this is about not just character building in the sense of having a wider range of attributes and abilities, but the self-esteem that goes with it. Whatever can build self-esteem will develop in children and young people something that will be of value to them throughout their lives.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, when making statements to this House, explaining carefully the structure of the support that is to be given and the contract for difference that is going to be provided. Contrary to the point the hon. Gentleman makes, we should be emphasising the necessity, at this stage, of ensuring that we have the security of knowing that we have relatively carbon-free production from a secure source that is able to balance our requirements for energy in the future.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Many hon. Members will have heard from constituents who have overpaid for the congestion charge, or even when filing their own tax return, because of misleading websites or search returns. May we have a debate on making the internet a more consumer-friendly place, so that our constituents can find the genuine websites of Government, charities and trademark owners, not scammers, chancers and rip-off merchants?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We do take customer confidence in online services, especially those relating to Government services most widely, very seriously. The Minister for Civil Society has commissioned a cross-government exercise to gather information about the operation of third party websites offering services associated with official Government services, so that we can have a full understanding of the scale and nature of the problem. That will inform Ministers’ discussions on the best way to address the issues caused by the misleading activity of some third party websites.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am only staggering to my feet because I am astonished by the effrontery of the Labour party in suggesting that special advisers might be behaving in a semi-house-trained way. What is happening under this Government bears no comparison with what happened under the last Government.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There has been a sharp increase in the fly-grazing of often badly malnourished horses, with a particular concentration in Alton, which is in my constituency. May we have a debate on this so that we can determine how local authorities can be given effective power to deal with fly-grazing quickly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend may wish to apply to the Backbench Business Committee—along with colleagues—or to seek an Adjournment debate, because the issue is important. There is legislation that can be used, but there are unscrupulous owners who are fly-grazing horses and putting landowners at considerable risk as a consequence.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend perhaps invites Members to be in the Chamber for private Members’ Bills on Fridays, and it would be jolly good if they were to attend for that purpose. On the procedure for private Members’ Bills, I will, if I may, await the report by the Procedure Committee, which has been inquiring into the matter. I hope it will soon report on the issue and give us some guidance.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Following the earlier request from the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) for a debate on payday loans, and given the welcome announcement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday about easing restrictions on credit unions in the short-term loans market and ongoing Government support for credit unions and the expansion project, may we have a debate that combines how to cut out predatory and excessive cost lenders with how to help the responsible alternative credit unions reach their full potential?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and in addition to the payday action plan that I referred to in response to an earlier question, it is important—as he says—that the Government have announced they will raise the credit union interest rate cap from 2% to 3%. That should reduce the losses made on loans, increase stability in the sector, and improve consumer access. The Government have also committed up to £38 million in additional investment in credit unions, which should increase access for at least 1 million more people. I hope that will do what my hon. Friend asks in promoting credit unions as an alternative.

Business of the House

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have noticed that the Ministry of Justice will be answering questions on Tuesday, and she might wish to raise this matter at that time. I cannot offer Government time, but such issues may also be raised on the Adjournment or, collectively with other Members, through the Backbench Business Committee. Many days in this Session have been provided for the Backbench Business Committee. I am happy to listen to applications for Government time for general debates, but the intention was for Back-Bench Members collectively to decide where their priorities lie.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Figures last week show that the massive growth in payday loans, which started under the last Government, is continuing and the debt charity StepChange has given an example of a couple who had 36 payday loans between them. May we have a debate on the problem of high-cost debt and on how to encourage responsible lending?

[Mr Lansley]

The statistics from StepChange to which my hon. Friend refers serve to confirm the Government’s view that there are serious problems within that market that need to be addressed. That is why we announced an action plan on 6 March. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Office of Fair Trading is prioritising enforcement and compliance. It will also announce in the next few months whether it will be referring the industry to the Competition Commission in the light of concerns over the way in which the market operates.