House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am delighted at least to start to respond to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and his Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for her comments. She said that she was a rebel against her Whips before being dragooned into their service. I suppose that I have a similar background in that I fear that I did not endear myself to my then Whips over the Lisbon treaty, but I seem to have recovered at least some favour with the party since then.
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, because he went out of his way to express his admiration and gratitude to our colleagues who form the current Whips team. He also justifiably made a great deal of the Government’s progress in re-enfranchising Parliament and making it more effective and more able to look after its interests rather than simply being the instrument of the Executive. One of the abiding features of recent Parliaments was restrictions, not only on the House’s structures, but through timetabling. Having lived through 13 years of a Labour Government, knowing exactly what happened then, and given the comparative freedom we now have to consider legislation, I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Warrington North talk about the time available for Bills.
There have been genuine improvements. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough has said, one such improvement goes beyond anything else—the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, on which he serves with such distinction. There is also the promise of more to come, such as our commitment as a Government to introduce a full business of the House Committee.
I have just enough time to say how much I respect the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) and their team. Working with them in the past 18 months has been an absolute pleasure—an unexpected pleasure, because I did not know the extent of the co-operation and sensitivity that I could expect from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household and the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household.
The understanding of and fellow feeling for Back Benchers that they have shown have been a revelation to me, and they were clearly recognised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who has not been cajoled, threatened or bullied but has, by a simple process of persuasion, found himself able to accept the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
2. What recent consideration has been given to the role of the Grand Committees of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Welsh Grand Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee have a valuable contribution to make to the work of the House, and I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will be meeting again in November, following the agreement of the House on Tuesday.
Mr Dodds
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. Given the advent of devolution, opportunities for Members from Northern Ireland—I can speak only for them—are somewhat limited, so it is important that meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee take place. Will he ensure that there are more frequent meetings at which matters of relevance to the Province can be debated in more time than is available on the Floor of the House?
Mr Heath
I certainly hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what arrangements can be made. Obviously, there are limits to the number of times that any Grand Committee can sensibly meet, but I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Earlier this week, my excellent Whip informed me that on 20 October the Welsh Grand Committee will be meeting in my constituency. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it was extremely discourteous of the Government not even to have told me about the meeting and for that information to have been conveyed to me by my Whip rather than by somebody acting on behalf of the Government?
Mr Heath
I am sure that no discourtesy was intended. Of course the decisions of Grand Committees to meet are presented to the House, and so the hon. Gentleman would be aware of it by that means. I would have thought that any discourtesy was more than outweighed by the convenience to him of having the Grand Committee meet in his constituency.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
3. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of parliamentary questions for written answer.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The average cost to the taxpayer of a question for written answer is estimated at £239. In the financial year 2010-11, a total of 46,825 written answers were published, at an estimated total cost of about £11.2 million.
Mark Menzies
We would all agree that written parliamentary questions are an important way of holding the Government to account, but what steps is the Deputy Leader of the House proposing to take to limit exposure to the public purse? Should hon. Members be in more control of this process?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I really do not think it is for the Government to limit or try to ration the supply of questions, because, as he says, it is very important that hon. Members have that opportunity to hold the Government to account. However, I do think that hon. Members, like other public servants, should consider the impact of their activities on the public purse. It is particularly important to recognise that the right to table questions belongs to hon. Members, and hon. Members alone.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that if he is to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to
“increase the power of Parliament”,
he should be worrying less about the quantity of questions and more about the quality of the answers? What is he going to do to ensure that Ministers give full and timely responses to Members, and that they end the increasing practice of giving holding answers to named day questions and transferring orals at very little notice? Or is this going to go the way of other prime ministerial pledges, such as those for more free votes on Bill Committees and text updates on the progress of Bills?
Mr Heath
The hon. Lady has a very short memory span if she really thinks that this Government are performing worse than the Government of whom she was a member. I recall that many times her Government were quite incapable of providing timely, or indeed adequate, responses to questions. We always try very hard within the Departments to make sure that people get their questions answered properly and on time. If Departments fall short of those ideals, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are very happy to chase up those Departments to see whether we can improve the performance. However, I have to say that I do not think the performance is lacking at the moment.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to increase the transparency of the lobbying of hon. Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform announced on 18 January, the Government remain committed to creating a statutory register of lobbyists and are working towards developing proposals for that register. The Government hope to hold the consultation exercise later this year before bringing forward any necessary legislation in due course.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the erosion of trust among the public in politics and politicians over the past few years, will he ensure that that process proceeds as quickly as possible and tell the House precisely when the register will be in place?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I entirely agree with him. This is a priority issue and we need such a degree of transparency in the arrangements for lobbyists. As I said, we have a consultation exercise and it would be wrong for me to prejudge it, but it is certainly our hope and intention that we will be in a position to introduce legislation on this matter in the next Session of Parliament, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
6. When he plans to implement the remaining recommendations of the House of Commons Reform Committee’s report “Rebuilding the House”.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the process for using ministerial statements to make major Government announcements.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
So far this Session, there have been 139 oral ministerial statements and more than 1,500 written ministerial statements made to the House. My assessment is that this Government have a much better record than the previous Government.
Pat Glass
The right hon. Gentleman has something of a reputation as a parliamentary reformer. Is he not concerned that that reputation is now under threat given his churlish and I have to say uncharacteristic response to the Procedure Committee regarding ministerial statements?
Mr Heath
I presume that the hon. Lady is referring to the response from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can remember not a single occasion on which he has even hinted at churlishness, let alone expressed it in response to a Select Committee. Of course we look carefully at what is proposed by Select Committees, and there will be times when we do not entirely agree with them for very good reasons, but that does not mean that we do not respect what they say, while being prepared to argue our case in due course when relevant matters are debated in the Chamber.
Mr McKenzie
Why is the hon. Gentleman so against using Westminster Hall to ease the burden on this Chamber and allow us fully to scrutinise the misguided legislation that his Government are pushing through the House?
Mr Heath
I am not sure that I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman. He is a new Member of the House and I hope he will not consider it patronising when I say that he may not know why Westminster Hall sittings were first proposed, which was to allow for non-legislative and non-contentious business to be taken in a parallel Chamber while the House was sitting. It was not meant to create impossible dilemmas for Members in having to attend two important venues at the same time. Having said that, if we can make better use of Westminster Hall we are certainly open to doing so. If we can find other ways of reducing the pressures on this Chamber then it is better that we do so. The biggest difficulty that we have is the huge appetite that the House understandably has for hearing Ministers make statements and its proper appetite for scrutinising legislation fully and properly.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
9. What plans he has to assess the effectiveness of the e-petitions initiative.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Leader of the House’s office is constantly monitoring the effectiveness of the e-petitions site. Following its launch, the site now hosts more than 6,500 petitions, which have received more than 1.5 million signatures. This unprecedented interest in the site is a useful indicator of its effectiveness. For the first time, the e-petitions website is not just graffiti, but offers the public an effective route for engaging with Parliament.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer—I was going to ask him about the overall visitor numbers to the site and the number of petitions already hosted on there. Will he comment on the decision of the Backbench Business Committee about the most popular two petitions not being discussed until we reconvene in October?
Mr Heath
I think it would be entirely improper for me to answer on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, but let me make it clear that we have provided a way for the public to engage with Parliament. What the petitioners want, presumably, is for the topic they have raised either to be dealt with effectively by the Government or to be debated in due course by the House when the opportunity arises. The idea that when a petition reached the threshold there would be an immediate debate is not the purpose of the site, but it does mean that proper consideration is given to whether the matter has been debated or will be debated in another form or whether the Government have changed their policy to meet the concerns, which may be the case in relation to at least one of the petitions that has already reached the required threshold.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail, which says that this amounts to an e-petition con? The Government said to the public, “If 100,000 of you sign one of these petitions, there’ll be a debate.” What discussion did the Government have with the Backbench Business Committee about how the time for those debates would be allocated?
Mr Heath
May I caution the hon. Lady, first against reading the Daily Mail, and secondly against agreeing with what it says? The Government have never said that when a petition reaches the threshold it will have an automatic right of debate. It will be considered with a view to seeing whether the matter raised has already been debated or is already going to be debated in a different context or whether the request has already been met by the Government. If there is then a need to debate something that the public have registered as an interest, the Backbench Business Committee will respond to that request. That seems to me an entirely proper way of doing things and it is a huge improvement on the old No. 10 petition site on which the petitions went precisely nowhere.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
This has been a very important day both for the country and for Parliament. It is important because, for the first time, we have had a very clear indication that the police investigations that were carried out so inadequately before are now going ahead and yielding results.
It is important because we have heard of the establishment of a proper judicial inquiry under a very capable judge, Lord Justice Leveson, that will deal not only with the inadequacies of the previous inquiry and not only with the unacceptable practices in the press and the media. I am wholly unconvinced that those practices were confined to News International, and I am glad that the inquiry will work on a wider spectrum. The inquiry will look at the relationship between some media and some politicians and allow for proper investigation of the perhaps too cosy relationship that has sometimes existed. The decision by the Prime Minister to provide for proper disclosure of meetings between senior politicians and the media—I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will agree to that for his own party—seems to be a great step forward.
The other area that the inquiry will deal with—this is absolutely crucial, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been talking about it for some time—is the potential systemic suborning of police officers by some elements of the media. We must put an end to that.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that the inquiry deals in great depth not only with the points that he has made but with the abuses of many other newspapers in illegally procuring personal information?
Mr Heath
I absolutely agree with that intervention.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is a good day for Parliament. We should avoid being self-congratulatory—we have hardly been a model of good practice over the years—but today, and over recent days, we have been able to demonstrate that we can express the views of the public.
It is also a good day because News International’s bid for BSkyB has been withdrawn, as it should have been withdrawn. There was increasing revulsion at the revelations of what were called offences against common decency. I think people would have found it very difficult to understand why the Murdoch empire was carrying on trying to expand its boundaries when there were such clear deficiencies within.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Is it also the responsibility of the inquiry to look at the warnings that have been given over 17 years about the accretion of powers by the Murdoch empire, the failure to act on those warnings during those years, and the failure to act on the very clear recommendations to which the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) referred, which suggested in 2006 that 31 newspapers and more than 300 journalists had been guilty of illegality. Nothing was done about that in the following five years.
Frank Dobson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the rot set in when, against the advice of the late Michael Foot, Mrs Thatcher set the precedent of refusing to refer the purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times to the then Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the grounds that 40% ownership of newspapers was too much in one pair of hands?
Mr Heath
We have had abundant evidence since then of what has or has not been done in relationships with the media.
The best contributions to the debate have been the most sober and non-partisan, and I am grateful to colleagues who entered into the debate in that context. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whose Committee has done such a lot of good work. I am grateful, as I have indicated, to the hon. Member for Rhondda for what he has said not just today but on previous occasions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), to the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for his very brief contribution. They talked not only about the criminal behaviour that has been uncovered over recent days and weeks, but about the concentration of power and ownership and the effect that that has on the media in this country, and about the adequacy of the Press Complaints Commission, which we clearly need to look at. The hon. Member for Bracknell warned that new media and technologies will bring new challenges that we have to address.
There were contributions from members of the previous Government. I think that most of what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said had more to do with the competition authorities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport than with the contents of this debate, but he took this opportunity to raise those issues. There was a long contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). May I say that it is genuinely a pleasure to have him contributing to our debates in this House, and he should do so more often? Everybody understands his personal issues concerning the completely inappropriate release of information about his family, and everybody has sympathy for him over that. Everybody will take careful notice of the serious evidence that he produced to the House, which I hope will be properly considered by the inquiry. I hope that he will give full evidence to the inquiry, as he indicated he would in his contribution, as I hope will other members of the previous Government who have a story to tell. I would criticise him because there was a self-exculpatory tone in much of what he said, and I think that that may have grated on some. Nevertheless, it was an important contribution.
The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) did not quite rise to the occasion. He wanted to take a partisan view, in considerable contrast to the leader of his party. He wanted to resile from the body of law that the Government of whom he was a member put in place. He wanted to say that issues that cannot be clearly linked in law should be linked in law. I remind him of what he said on 10 June, because it is relevant to his contribution:
“The serious admissions of culpability by News International aren’t relevant to the News Corp-BSkyB media plurality issue”.
Now he is saying that those admissions are intrinsic to it. He cannot have it both ways.
What we have seen is a systemic failure across the institutions of public life to get to grips with a cancer of wrongdoing. There were abundant signs over the years: admissions of criminal behaviour, Select Committee reports that went unheeded, and clear examples of big media organisations wielding too much power, political and commercial. I hope that the inquiries that are being put in place today will deal with that issue. I hope that that chapter is drawing to a close. I believe that we have a unique window of opportunity to get it right. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) says that we have barely started yet. He is absolutely right. We have barely started getting to grips with this cancer of wrongdoing, but we will get to grips with it. We now have an inquiry that will set us on the right path and a Government determined to act. That is as it should be. I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.
Committee on Members’ Allowances
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) shall be amended as follows—
(1) in line 2, leave out ‘Allowances’ and insert ‘Expenses’; and
(2) leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert ‘to consider such matters relating to Members’ expenses as may be referred to it by the House;’.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following motion, on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009:
That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.
Mr Heath
The motions would amend the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, in advance of its review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say in business questions that he would find it very difficult to find additional time to debate the matter before the recess, but by happenstance we now have adequate time to do the job today. I am extremely pleased that that is the case.
On 12 May, the House gave an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances to review the 2009 Act,
“giving due consideration to ensuring:
(a) value for money for taxpayers;
(b) accountability;
(c) public confidence in Parliament;
(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
The debate was initiated through the Backbench Business Committee by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who I am pleased to see in his place. Following a good debate, the House agreed to the instruction without a Division.
Since May, the Government have been in discussion with colleagues in the House on changes to the terms of reference of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, given its change in remit. I express my gratitude to my long-suffering right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his efforts in seeking consensus on a sensible approach.
One of the Government’s proposals following consultation was that the Chair be removed from the list of Select Committee Chairs receiving an additional salary, which was approved by the House on Tuesday 5 July. There are two outstanding motions that have previously been objected to and remain to be approved. Motion 9 would amend the Standing Order relating to the Committee by changing its name to the Committee on Members’ Expenses. That terminology reflects the fact that the current scheme, operated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is an expenses-based system, not an allowances-based one.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I echo the Deputy Leader of the House’s thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) for his help in ensuring that we bring this matter to a swift resolution.
The instruction issued to the Committee on 12 May was that it review the 2009 Act, which does not relate directly to expenses. My concern is that calling it an expenses Committee and limiting its remit would in some way prevent it from doing its work of reviewing the 2009 Act. If the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that the change will in no way narrow the Committee’s ability to do its work of reviewing the Act and producing recommendations, there will be very little to detain us.
Mr Heath
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the change in wording in no way restricts the ability of the Committee to consider the issue of allowances as it relates to the review of the operation of the Act. The Committee will be free to consider the issue of allowances and to make recommendations as it sees fit. The Government have no intention of seeking to restrict the Committee’s remit in the way that is feared.
Mr Leigh
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, I have no idea what the Committee will decide, but for instance—for the sake of argument—if it were to recommend that the current expense-based system on living away should be replaced by a flat-rate allowance, would that be perfectly in order?
Mr Heath
Indeed, it can make any recommendations based on the considerations into which it has entered. It would be a very odd restriction on a Committee if it were to be told that it cannot make recommendations when it has considered a matter. Of course, such recommendations would be the end result if the Committee so chooses.
Motion 9 also brings the Committee’s terms of reference up to date. The Committee has a number of specific functions, set out in Standing Order No. 152G(1)(a) to (d), in relation to the old allowances regime that was administered by the House until the election last year. They include, for example, approving practice notes for the now-defunct fees office. Clearly, those specific powers are no longer relevant—they are, in effect, spent—and the motion provides the House with an opportunity to replace them with a more general power to consider any matter related to Members’ expenses that the House might choose to refer to it.
I sense from the interventions from the hon. Members for Windsor and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that they have received some reassurance from what I have said.
Mr Bacon
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can reassure me. He said that the motion brings the Standing Order up to date because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is operating an expenses-based scheme, not an allowances scheme. I have looked at the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. It mentions the word “allowance” or “allowances” 37 times. Therefore, the authority under which IPSA operates—the Act—provides for allowances. It does not provide any authority to operate an expenses scheme. Can he clarify that for me?
Mr Heath
I can simply make it clear that IPSA does what it believes to be in line with the Act. The Committee will be free to consider those matters and to bring forward recommendations as it sees fit. I do not think that I can be more open than simply saying that no restriction is applied by the terms of the motions.
Mr Bacon
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for being as open as he thinks he can be, but I am still not quite clear. The 2009 Act could not be clearer. The words “expense” or “expenses” are not mentioned anywhere—I just searched a PDF copy of the Act and found that those words are mentioned nowhere in it—but the words “allowance” or “allowances” are mentioned 37 times. How can it be that IPSA operates a scheme that it thinks is in line with the Act if it ignores the terms of the Act? That is what I simply do not understand.
Mr Heath
It is probably not helpful for me to rehearse the subject matter of considerations that will clearly take place in the Committee. I do not speak for IPSA, but it has made it very clear that the current system is one of expenses, whereby Members are reimbursed for costs that they can prove they have incurred. The previous, discredited scheme was one of allowances, whereby Members were allowed to claim, in many cases, with no proof of actual expenditure. I repeat that changing the title of the Committee would not prevent it from proposing that IPSA should introduce a new system that includes an element of allowances, but it would be better if the Committee’s title actually reflected the scheme that is in operation rather than one that is not in operation.
Adam Afriyie
From the reassurance the Deputy Leader of the House has given, I am satisfied that the remit of the Committee and the review will not be restricted, and we can look at everything and come to a calm, considered conclusion. My final question is on the timing of the formation of the Committee, given that we have had a 49-hour stutter in the proceedings.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be an indication that he will not press his amendment. That is good, because it means that everyone has the same understanding of what we are doing. In terms of timing, I know that the Leader of the House is champing at the bit to take the necessary steps to allow the Committee of Selection to establish the Committee. Indeed, I think it would probably have already been done had it not been for the delays—albeit quite proper delays—occasioned by the objections and amendments that have been tabled. If we can dispose of this business today, I have every confidence that the Committee will be up and running at a very early date. We will then be in business, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
Adam Afriyie
I appreciate that one can never predict the future, but can the Deputy Leader of the House say whether he expects that the Committee will be formed this side of the recess?
Adam Afriyie
Then I can say on my own behalf, and possibly on behalf of others, that I will not press my amendments. I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his assurance and I thank the Leader of the House for the calm and considered way in which he has approached the issue.
Mr Heath
I am extremely grateful and I hope that, subject of course to the will of the House in approving the recommendation by the Committee of Selection in due course, we will be able to make quick progress.
Motion 10 asks the Committee to report back to the House on the issue tasked to it by 31 December 2011. That date allows the views of the Committee to be considered to a time scale that fits in with the next annual review of the expenses scheme by IPSA, which is expected early next year. A delay in reporting risks the ability of IPSA to consider, consult on and implement in an orderly way any changes that may be proposed. I gather that we may not now have a Division on the amendment, which I am very pleased about. Otherwise, we might have a delay that would obstruct the work of the Committee.
The House agreed on 12 May that a review of the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 should take place. The Government are keen that the Committee is set up without any more unnecessary delay and gets on with the important work that the House has tasked it with, and I commend the motions to the House.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to colleagues who have participated in this brief debate. I do not think that any of us seek to minimise the difficulties that have on occasion arisen over the last year in the operation of IPSA. As we all know, there are numerous bodies trying to iron out the problems and produce a more user-friendly, but at the same time rigorous approach to the whole subject. The Committee that we are setting up—that the House has asked to be set up—will go a long way towards dealing with the more fundamental review of the legislation, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and coming up with recommendations.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that if he had doubts about the wording of the Government motions, we would all have been delighted to discuss his concerns with him and allay any fears. As I mentioned earlier, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) has spent quite some time discussing with interested Members the implications of the Government amendments, and to a large extent was able to reassure those who had a fundamental interest in the establishment of the Committee that their fears were groundless and that this was a real attempt to facilitate its setting up.
Mr Chope
Does the Minister accept that, if those fears had been allayed, my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) would not have had to table the amendments that are being debated today? How is what he has just said consistent with the Government’s action yesterday in withdrawing from the business of the Committee of Selection the appointment of the members of this Committee? Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend why the opportunity for a short, five-minute debate was not taken—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I must also tell him that we are discussing motions 9 and 10 together, and that no amendments have been moved.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It would clearly have been entirely inappropriate for the Committee of Selection to pre-empt the decision of the House, and the House was prevented from taking a decision by the fact that amendments had been tabled that would have been treated as an objection to the order unless we could find time to debate it. Happily, we have had time to do so today, and I hope that I have been helpful to colleagues. I know that the Committee of Selection will be eager to meet at the earliest opportunity in order to make recommendations, which will then have to go before the House, to enable the Committee to be set up. We can now proceed without any further obstruction, should the House agree to the two motions that we have now debated. I hope that we can now do so with expedition.
Question put and agreed to.
Review of parliamentary Standards act 2009
Ordered,
That, further to the instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances of 12 May, it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Expenses to report to the House on the review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by 31 December 2011.— (Bill Wiggin.)
Electricity Transmission (Protection of Landscape)
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require factors other than cost to be considered for schemes for the transmission of high voltage electricity where infrastructure would impact on the visual and other amenity of a landscape; to provide that in certain cases such infrastructure be installed by visually unobtrusive works; to require that public consultation be undertaken and inform the selection of the method and technology for the transmission infrastructures used; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. It seeks to update the Electricity Act 1989, which recognises the transmission of high-voltage electricity only on cables strung between transmission towers, which we all know as pylons. Concerns have been raised by thousands of people throughout the country, many of whom live in rural areas and do not have the protection afforded to those in urban or suburban communities, where power lines are automatically put underground.
People who live in towns and cities, however, often enjoy their leisure time and holidays in the countryside, and I draw attention particularly to the 26,000 people whose livelihoods are dependent on tourism in my constituency, just one of many that would be damaged beyond belief if new lines on 152 ft pylons were introduced. The Somerset levels were in contention to become the 17th world heritage site until the proposal was made.
There are such problems for rural communities all over the country, as new pylons are planned to bring new supplies of energy from whatever source, be it turbines, gas, coal, wind, nuclear or tidal. What happens when we want to install cable TV? Automatically, we dig up high streets and roads all over the place. What happens when we host the Olympics? Around the whole Olympic village, power cables have been put underground. We do not suspend blue water pipes or yellow gas pipes from transmission towers, so why do we do so for electricity power cables?
National Grid has drawn to my attention the fact that it is holding a competition on pylon design, but that is purely a diversion and certainly not the answer to the country’s questions about transmission. The county council, district councils and parish councils are all against the proposals, but all that National Grid, our monopoly supplier, does is hear; it does not listen. There are alternatives, and they are underground and undersea.
The Bill recognises several factors, including the voice of the public and the value of consultation, which should not just be done on the nod; it should be about listening, not just hearing. Consultation responses should inform the method and technology for the infrastructure used. This is also about being green. Losses during transmission are about 7% once one gets the power to the cables. It is clear that undergrounding or putting cables undersea would reduce those losses significantly.
There are health reasons why we should put cables underground. The Government continue to be very poorly advised on the adverse health effects associated with high-voltage overhead power lines. Extensive studies have established a clear correlation between increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult leukaemia, adult brain tumours, motor neurone disease, miscarriage and Alzheimer’s disease and the electromagnetic fields associated with such lines. The risk to children and adults easily satisfies a cost-benefit analysis in favour of burying high-voltage power lines.
The UK Health Protection Agency considers only a fraction—typically less than 10%—of the available scientific evidence. Included in major studies showing increased risk of childhood leukaemia are the 2005 study by Dr Gerald Draper of Oxford university, published in the British Medical Journal, and studies in Tasmania and, particularly, in Iran, where all power lines go overground. One of the many studies showing increased risks of Alzheimer’s disease is the 2008 whole-population study by Dr Anke Huss of the university of Berne, which revealed particular risks in populations living near overhead power lines in Switzerland.
National Grid is not the National Gallery, the National Trust or the national health service, but it is a massive, monopoly, multinational provider with a primary aim—to seek the maximum return for its shareholders. We have no choice but to use this super-sized company to get our power from its source to the places where it can be distributed to us in our homes and businesses. In June 2009, National Grid’s own chief executive officer, Steve Holliday, went on the record to say that undergrounding transmission lines was a “ no-brainer”. Cost is not everything.
In October 2010, Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, requested an independent and authoritative evaluation of undergrounding. The Department of Energy and Climate Change sought the assistance of the Institution of Engineering and Technology as an independent assessor of that study by a company called KEMA. The study was to be funded by none other than National Grid. None the less, it went ahead, and the results were meant to be produced on 25 January. However, nothing happened. On 3 June, the IET issued a press release stating that KEMA had not been able to issue a report with which it was satisfied owing to a lack of data from National Grid, and so the IET could not endorse its work.
It is surely time to open up this debate—to put it right into the light and demand that all these figures be provided. I am calling for openness in deciding whether power cables should be put underground or undersea instead of overground. The costs are not an issue—we all pay them through our bills. In November 2009, National Grid admitted that the cost of undersea or undergrounding would put just 1% on our electricity bills. Siemens has produced figures showing that using gas-insulated lines would reduce the whole-life costs of underground cables to under half the costs of pylons.
I pay tribute to the work of my many colleagues across the House who are interested in this subject, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), as well as many others. There have been objections to pylons in Wales, Scotland, the north-east, the south-west and throughout East Anglia. I understand that there is a statement on record from Carwyn Jones, the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff, who said no to pylons too.
I also recognise the work of the many pressure groups. I am grateful to some of them for information, in particular Pylon Moor Pressure, No Moor Pylons, Save Our Valley, REVOLT, Bury Not Blight, Highlands before Pylons, North East Pylon Pressure, Montgomeryshire Against Pylons and Stour Valley Underground.
It is time to consider the impact of what we are doing to our countryside, our tourism, our health and our environment. We know the cost of everything, but this matter indicates that we might not spot the value of what we have. Changing the law would at least give us the opportunity to get it right for everyone’s sake. I am delighted to introduce this measure to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tessa Munt, Martin Horwood, Roger Williams, Sir Robert Smith, Tim Farron, Mr Tim Yeo, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Glyn Davies, Natascha Engel, Dr Alan Whitehead, Mrs Anne McGuire and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Tessa Munt accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 215).
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, you heard a point of order from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which suggested that the Government had not made Parliament aware of fundamental changes in tax policy by a statement in the House. I believe that that was incorrect. I think that she was referring to the ring fence expenditure supplement for the North sea fiscal regime. I am sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, that that was presaged in the March Budget. Further to that, a very detailed written ministerial statement was issued by the Treasury this morning and was available in the House of Commons Library at 10 o’clock. Indeed, had the hon. Lady taken the trouble to look at the Order Paper, she would have found it at No. 3 on the list of today’s written ministerial statements. I just wanted to put the record straight.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for doing so. The point is on the record and is very clear.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
3. What recent representations he has received on the procedure governing Opposition day debates.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have received no recent representations on the matter.
Greg Hands
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. One of the problems we have at the moment with Opposition day debates is the late notification of the topic and the motion, which deprives Members on both sides of the House of the opportunity to prepare speeches and points. Will he have a word with his opposite number to see how we might be able to improve the procedure to help to improve debate on both sides of the House?
Mr Heath
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is open to the Opposition to table the subject for debate immediately after the date is announced, and it would be a courtesy to the House if it were given an appropriate length of time to know what the debate will be and to allow Members to table amendments, if they wish.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Is the Deputy Leader of the House satisfied with the amount of time the non-Labour Opposition parties get for Opposition days? Surely all the time that was afforded to the Liberals has gone to the Labour party. Why did none of it come to the smaller parties, which seem to get half a day every decade?
Mr Heath
In the allocation of time, we are bound by the Standing Orders of the House. The hon. Gentleman might like to look at the Standing Orders and suggest to the Procedure Committee or others that they should change them, but at the moment we can do only as the Standing Order require.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
5. What recent progress he has made on his proposals to make the proceedings of the House of Commons more topical.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Since the general election, the Government have established the Backbench Business Committee, reintroduced September sittings, increased the amount of time available for topical questions and are making many more statements than the previous Government. I think that the increased level of coverage we have seen of questions, statements and debates in the media is testament to the increasingly topical nature of this place.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. A key step in making proceedings more topical would be to launch Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House. What progress is being made on that proposal? [Interruption.]
Mr Heath
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says from a sedentary position that that is a good idea. It is indeed a good idea. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will shortly write to the Chairs of the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee to seek their views on proposals to allow for short statements and questions from Committees on the day of publication of some reports.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Leader of the House referred to topical questions in his initial response, and we have seen those recently extended to International Development questions. Are there any plans to do so for other Departments that do not have topical questions, such as the Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office?
Mr Heath
There are no current plans for further extensions, but we were very happy to accede to the request, which actually originated with the Opposition, to find time for topical questions on some of the Departments that previously did not have them. There are no plans to extend topical questions at the moment, but we will of course entertain any such requests in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider reactivating the second Adjournment debate procedure so that when Government business collapses, as it will today, there is an opportunity to use the full parliamentary timetable for Back-Bench business?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
8. What plans he has to reform arrangements for scrutiny of European legislation in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said in a written ministerial statement on 20 January, the Government are keen to explore new ways of scrutinising European Union issues. He is in discussions with the European Scrutiny Committee and its counterparts in another place, but the Government will of course welcome proposals from other parliamentarians.
Miss McIntosh
From a reply to a written question, I understand that the Government are keen to end the gold-plating of EU directives, but the only way of doing so is by granting MPs the power to amend the statutory implementing regulations as they go through the House—to amend the text and to reject the regulations. Will the Government approve that?
Mr Heath
I understand the argument for amending draft orders. The difficulty is that, if the two Houses of Parliament amend matters differently, we will then need a reconciliation process, and, instead of an order-making process, we will effectively have a small Bill going through the procedures of Parliament. There are some difficulties with the hon. Lady’s proposal, but I will of course pass on her concerns to the Minister for Europe.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
During the final two years of the previous Parliament, the then Opposition railed against the fact that the structure of the European Standing Committees collapsed into basically random Committees. There used to 39 Members on three Committees who debated regularly the issues coming from Europe, and it was promised that they would be reinstated. The level of ignorance about European business in this House has gone through the roof, however, and it is time that the Government put people back on those Committees in order that they learn the business of Europe before they stand up and open their mouths.
Mr Heath
I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman’s final observations, but he is right to say that we need to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise European business appropriately and fully. That is why I am sure the Minister for Europe is very much engaged in talking to him and his colleagues to make sure that we get the parliamentary structures right—and as soon as possible.
General Debate
David Heath Excerpts(13 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. It is also a pleasure to have another opportunity for a general debate. We had one not long ago with a pre-recess Adjournment debate; I suspect we will have another one relatively soon, with the next pre-recess Adjournment debate. One can never have too much of a good thing. The only thing I regret is that both hon. Members who have taken the opportunity to speak today have raised issues about transport in their constituencies. Had we known that only transport issues would be raised in the general debate, it might have been more appropriate for a Minister from the Department for Transport to offer a response, because I fear that I am an inadequate substitute.
I assure the hon. Members that their comments will be passed on to relevant colleagues. Where there are issues, which inevitably I will not be able to answer to their satisfaction because I do not have the expertise, they will get replies in due course from the relevant Departments. I also thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and the Backbench Business Committee. They were given a difficult spot to fill today, when so many hon. Members are quite properly engaged in matters in their constituencies, and they have done their best under difficult circumstances to ensure that hon. Members have the opportunity to raise matters of importance.
I echo the hon. Member for Battersea regarding the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell): it takes great energy to speak in two debates simultaneously in the House on different issues that affect his constituency. He has contrived to do that this afternoon, which is to be commended.
I enjoyed the history of the Middlesex communities that the hon. Gentleman gave us at the beginning of his comments. I do not think we hear enough about rural Middlesex, which has been wiped from the national consciousness. However, it is a delightful area. I felt for him when he talked of his lack of success in ringing a peal of bells. I have never tried a full scale peal of bells, but I was recently asked to open a refurbished chapel in my constituency, where I simply had to ring a single bell to mark the fact that the chapel was reopened. I was told firmly that I had to pull hard on the rope. That is not advice one should give to a former rugby player. I pulled hard and the bell remained obstinately silent, but the rope was there in my hand, no longer attached to the bell. That is an aside. I was glad that no one filmed that for people to watch on their computers.
I will not fill my entire reply with anecdotes about my constituency, but I like the fact that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned that Mr Cox of Cox’s orange pippin apples came from his constituency. I am sure that he already knew that, but I am always fascinated by the fact that one continually finds out new things about one’s constituency as one goes around. I recently looked at the history of the village of Rode in my constituency, which became topical due to the book and subsequent TV programme, “The Suspicions of Mr Whicher”, about a very famous murder there. I was irritated by the fact that it constantly said that Rode was in Wiltshire, and I knew it to be in Somerset. I looked at the local history to see whether it had ever been in Wiltshire, and, no, it had not been, but the house where the murder took place was just across the county boundary. Purely by chance, I discovered that a wool mill in Rode invented the colour “royal blue” in response to a competition, therefore “royal blue” was invented in my constituency. That is the sort of detail that one discovers as an MP, which one would never have a reason to find out otherwise.
I shall return to the matters about which we are supposed to be talking, which are the important issues raised by the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and for Hayes and Harlington. I ought to declare an interest in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, in that I believe I am still a beneficial owner of 1 square foot of Sipson village as part of the campaign against the third runway at Heathrow. I do not regret my position, and I am very pleased that it is now the Government’s position. It was an excellent campaign that drew attention to the fact that we really need to put some constraints on airport expansion, while recognising, as the hon. Gentleman does, the economic and other benefits of airports. Getting that balance right is inevitably the purpose of Government.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington correctly stressed that the coalition Government made a clear commitment not to proceed with the third runway at Heathrow, but to look at how we make Heathrow, and the other major British airports, work more efficiently and provide a better service without expansion—make Heathrow better, not bigger. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I share that aspiration. He drew attention to how the long period spent aspiring to the expansion of Heathrow blighted the neighbouring villages and his constituents, and this debate is a good opportunity to have done that. He talked about its effect on people who needed or wished to sell their homes, and the fact that they were unable to find buyers in the context of an anticipated expansion of the airport.
The hon. Gentleman has worked very hard on these issues over the years with BAA and the previous Government, even in the context of a policy in favour of expansion, to see how its effects could be mitigated. Part of the result of his labours and the work of the previous Government was the home owners support scheme that BAA set up, which he referred to as the bond scheme. It is important to stress that it was a non-statutory arrangement set up by and entirely a matter for BAA. It was clearly persuaded that it was worth while and what it should be doing as a good neighbour. Nevertheless, the scheme had no statutory basis, therefore how BAA operates it to protect local home owners from the effects of blight, to allow them to sell their homes without financial penalty and to move if they need to or want to is a matter for BAA. It is interesting to see the number of home owners who took advantage of the scheme and the impact that it has had on the local area. He said that BAA now owns some 300 houses. It had no obligation to establish the scheme; I think that it was a recommendation in the 2003 transport White Paper, and of course there is no obligation on home owners to partake in the scheme.
I readily recognise what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said about the scheme’s effect on the local area given the number of houses that are not normally filled with residents. If houses are lying empty or are subject to short-term lets or arrangements with airport employees, the situation will inevitably affect the local community. He not only listed the effects in terms of the lack of residential population, but listed the effects of the lack of a residential population on local businesses. He mentioned his constituents Jackie Clark, Shaun Walters, Gerald Storr, and Ian and Pam Stevenson, and the hairdressers, the local pub, the post office shop and the garden centre, which are all affected by no longer having a local constituency of customers or consumers, which means that their businesses will inevitably be put in some difficulty.
To summarise, I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks: BAA’s acceptance of responsibility for the blight caused by the expansion plans; a new compensation scheme that includes local small businesses and special cases that might fall outside the previous criteria; a consultation with community organisations to look at whether it is possible to establish a community regeneration scheme; and the sale of the empty properties and a move to ensure that they are not retained in the ownership of BAA, but are put back on to the general market. He also wants the various political parties to come together to create a common statement of intent with regard to Heathrow expansion. I think that he would ideally like a covenant putting a legal restraint on future development at Heathrow.
There is a limit to what I can stay to the hon. Gentleman in response, as he will appreciate. I hope that I am able to communicate all his points to my colleagues in the Department for Transport effectively. I am happy to reiterate the general policy direction. I have already said that we do not want the third runway—that is clear. We want Heathrow to develop in a better, rather than a bigger, way. There are further steps afoot that I am sure the hon. Gentleman, as an expert in the area, will be more familiar with than me. The South East Airports Task Force, which was announced on 15 June last year, has an important part to play. It is engaged with the various aviation stakeholders to deliver operational improvements at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, and is due to report in July 2011. It may have something to say that—“makes more concrete” is perhaps an inappropriate phrase—strengthens the future intentions in terms of the strategic planning of aviation.
The Department has issued a scoping document setting out the questions that it wants answered to develop a new vision for a competitive aviation industry, which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impacts, both globally in terms of climate change and locally in terms of noise and air quality. It put out the scoping document and set out the questions that it wants answered, and it is hoped that it can publish a draft policy framework for consultation by March 2012. That may add further weight to the direction in which the Government are working on aviation policy.
There are some important issues here that need to be taken up with BAA. To a large extent, the matter is in its hands, and there is a limit to how much the Government can insist on. The dialogue, however, must be maintained.
John McDonnell
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for saying that he will set out the proposals and communicate them to the relevant Ministers in the Department for Transport and for the supportive way in which he has responded to my contribution. Securing Government policy in the long term is important, and I am sure that there is good will in government to do that. I hope that there will also be good will across the parties. Will he say to the Secretary of State for Transport and the appropriate Minister that it would be helpful if they could meet the Hillingdon Members as soon as possible to look at this programme, because it is a matter of continuing concern? Locally, we have been working on this matter on a cross-party basis. It was the pressure that coalition Members applied when they were in opposition that brought BAA to the table for a proper dialogue, so an early meeting would be helpful.
Mr Heath
I will happily communicate that request to the Department. The Minister of State, Department for Transport is probably the appropriate Minister, and I will ask her whether such a meeting is possible. We will also see whether we can convey the concerns of the Government on this matter as well as those of individual Members.
This matter may be of interest to the Department for Communities and Local Government. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to see the London borough of Hillingdon hold nomination rights. Economic development issues will often be mediated by the Department and the local authorities, especially Hillingdon and, I suspect, Hounslow as well. I will bring his remarks to the attention of the DCLG in the hope that it will also have a view on the matter. I am grateful to him for everything that he said today. He made a compelling case on behalf of his constituents, and we all understand the difficulties that they face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey prefaced his remarks by stressing some unavoidable facts in his constituency. Although we often hear that the south-east drives the economy and that its economic conditions are rather better than those in the rest of the country, constituencies such as his have genuine problems relating to employment and to ensuring that there is sufficient access to growth in the economy. He said that 3,000 of his constituents are out of work, which is too many. We can reduce the number of unemployed people by enabling business to develop. However, that is not something that Government do; they create not jobs but the environment in which private industry can create jobs.
My hon. Friend told us some of the things that he is doing on behalf of his constituents. I am rather jealous of the acronym in his website—BLINKSS. It would not work for my constituency because it would become “BLINKSF”, which sounds like a speech impediment. He is clearly attuned to the needs of his constituents.
Despite the difficulties in north Kent, my hon. Friend listed a number of major employers in the area, such as the deepwater port, the steel works, the brick works, the paper mill, the distribution centre, the high-tech industries and the three prisons. The tourism industry is unrelated to the three prisons but, nevertheless, they co-exist.
Mr Heath
That is an interesting observation, but not one on which I will expand. We always hear that economic difficulties and deprivation take place in regions such as the north-east, which is true and I do not in any way minimise them. None the less, such problems also exist in the so-called prosperous south-east and south of England. Sometimes, it is more difficult to deal with pockets of deprivation within an otherwise reasonably affluent part of the country. I applaud what my hon. Friend is doing on behalf of his constituents.
My hon. Friend raised a number of road issues, most of which will not come as a great surprise to the Department for Transport, because they are matters that he has raised before. The A249 is the principal road serving his constituency. I hope that he is impressed that I have a full colour map of his constituency—I brought it along so that I could understand his geographical points. He mentioned how effective the new Swale crossing is in making the A249 fit for purpose, but then pointed out that it peters out on the outskirts of Sheerness, which means that it cannot effectively serve as an artery to the port facilities. As I understand it, Kent county council has not submitted an application to the Department for Transport for that to be dealt with, but one may be submitted in the future. If there is, my colleagues will be interested in considering it. However, the thrust of Government policy is that decisions of this kind will, as far as possible, be taken at a local level. He will recognise that in much of what has been said by both the Department for Transport and the DCLG. Such a policy is entirely appropriate, because local people know how resources should be applied to provide the best outcome. On matters such as the dual carriageway beyond Queenborough corner on the A249, and Sittingbourne’s northern relief road and its connection with the road at Bapchild, we are looking for a clear steer from the local authorities in the area. I know that my hon. Friend will be constantly pressing the case with Kent county council and with the other local authorities, which, in turn, will be applying for substantial amounts of capital investment from the Department for Transport to make such projects a reality.
I was intrigued by what my hon. Friend said about the rail spur and the effect that it will have on the movement of freight in his area. He also mentioned the prospect of improving the B2231—at least that is how it appears on my map, but it has apparently been renamed, which means that my map is out of date. He is talking about the road that serves the east of the Isle of Sheppey and provides a communication link to Eastchurch and Elystan. I can see that improving the road would make an immediate difference to the area.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give any commitments on behalf of the Department for Transport. I suspect that even if a Transport Minister were here, they would be equally unlikely to make firm commitments in response to his requests other than to say that they would seriously consider any applications.
The hon. Gentleman made a very strong case on behalf of his constituents. I will ensure that what he has said today is communicated to Ministers at the Department for Transport, and I will also ensure that he receives specific responses to his points, because I understand that he is seeking to make sure that the infrastructure in his constituency meets the aspirations for economic development that he has for his area, which I am sure his constituents appreciate.
I assure the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey that I will ensure that messages are passed to the Department for Transport about the specific points that they have made today and that responses will be passed back from the Department to them.
I thank both hon. Members for participating in the debate; I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to have the debate; and I thank you, Mr Benton, for chairing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Heath Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
2. If he will assess the merits of the provision of training on the procedures of the House for hon. Members who are former Ministers.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
No such assessment has been made, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I would be happy to receive representations on the issue.
Greg Hands
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has spoken only once in this Chamber in the past year—
Greg Hands
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That was in stark contrast to the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who used to speak monthly after he stood down. You will know, Mr Speaker, that yesterday saw the installation of the official photo of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in No. 10 Downing street. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree to acquire a copy of the photo for identification purposes to use in this Chamber in case the former Prime Minister decides to come down and participate.
Mr Heath
I am not sure that we necessarily need to go into that. I did see the picture and thought it looked rather nice; there was almost a smile. On the serious issue of training for former Ministers, I am sure that support could be made available if it were requested, and it might be welcomed, because when people leave office they often find that they forget some things.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What plans he has for pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation proposed by the Government; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government have made clear our intention to improve the quality of legislation. We have already published the draft Defamation Bill and two draft Detention of Terrorist Subjects (Temporary Extensions) Bills. We have also informed the Liaison Committee of our intention to invite pre-legislative scrutiny on the Financial Services Bill, the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, and the Political Reform Bill.
Simon Hughes
I welcome that reply, but can I establish that the Government intend all Government legislation to be published in draft as well as, later, in substantive form for the remainder of the current Parliament, so that pre-legislative scrutiny can take place all the time? That is clearly the best practice.
Mr Heath
We are committed to publishing Bills in draft whenever possible, but the aspiration to publish more of next Session’s potential Bills in draft must be balanced against the need to devote sufficient resources to getting this Session’s Bills right. We hope to increase the proportion of Bills published in draft during the current Parliament, and by the end of this Session we expect to have published more Bills in draft than the average number under the last Administration.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
As the Government are so keen on pre-legislative scrutiny, can the dear Deputy Leader explain why they did not use the procedure in the case of the Health and Social Care Bill? Would that not have had numerous advantages? It would have prevented the Government from introducing legislation that had not been thought through, it would have allowed the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they were being listened to, and, more important, it might have saved the NHS. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise for that abject failure, and ensure that the House is given proper time to debate the amendments to the Bill when the Government present them?
Mr Heath
I rather like the idea of being a dear Leader, or a dear Deputy Leader. I think it lends a certain cachet to the office.
The serious response to the hon. Lady’s question is that, with a new Administration, it is inevitable that some Bills will not receive pre-legislative scrutiny because they must be put into action. In the case of the Bill that she mentioned, however, a period of reflection is now being entered into, and I think that it will be extremely valuable. It will ensure that we hear the advice of everyone who is concerned with getting the Bill right.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the implications for the House of Commons of the Government’s programme for reducing the cost of politics.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Leader of the House and I regularly discuss such issues with ministerial colleagues. Since the general election the Government have cut ministerial pay by 5%, steered through legislation that will reduce the size of the House of Commons, cut the cost of special advisers, and scrapped the use of dedicated ministerial cars in all but exceptional cases. The House has played its part, with Members agreeing to the freezing of their salaries, and the Commission is overseeing a programme to save at least 17% by 2014-15 while ensuring that the House remains able to scrutinise the Executive effectively.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer, and particularly for his comment about ministerial cars. Like many other people, I believe that if we take care of the pennies, the pounds take care of themselves. Will the Deputy Leader of the House say a little more about the impact of the change in the ministerial cars system?
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 24 May 2010 the Government announced that in all but exceptional cases Ministers would no longer have dedicated cars and drivers. That is not to say that no cars are ever used—there are times when Ministers require the use of a car—but I think I can modestly say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I set something of an example in that we hardly, if ever, use ministerial cars: we prefer to use our bikes or walk.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
If Members of Parliament base their staff in their constituencies they must pay rent, rates and telephone, heating, lighting and photocopying bills, but if they base their staff at the House of Commons, all those assets come as a free resource. Will the Deputy Leader of the House consult representatives of the other parties, and try to find a way in which to get rid of the perverse incentive to base staff in London, where they cost the public purse rather more?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am very conscious of the fact that anything I say on this subject may be tweeted and used in evidence against me. The Leader of the House has received no representation on this matter, which is ultimately a matter for the House. The Procedure Committee has produced a sensible proposal in its report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote to the Chair of the Committee saying that we would both support a motion in the terms proposed by the Committee to be debated in Back-Bench time.
Kevin Brennan
I commend the report of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his Committee on this matter. Would it, however, be technically possible to install a screen in the Chamber so MPs could follow a live Twitter feed during the course of our debates and therefore be able to see what people are saying about us, including our own colleagues?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
While I broadly support the use of electronic devices for urgent messages and the like, I divided the Procedure Committee on the matter and voted against the report, simply because I took the view that if we were all to be sitting here tweeting, checking our e-mails and reading newspapers on screens, we would not be paying proper attention to the debates we were sent here to engage in. I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he is ready to respond to the Committee’s report, and let me add that I hope his response will be more considered than the report’s conclusions.
Mr Heath
I do think this is a House matter, and a matter for you, Mr Speaker—and you have given an indication of your own thoughts on it. I understand that the Chair of the Committee has asked the Backbench Business Committee for time to discuss the report, and I think it is appropriate that the House has a debate on the issue, takes on board the contrary views on either side of the argument, and then comes to a decision.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
7. For what reason the time allocated to questions for oral answer to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been reduced to 45 minutes; and if he will review that decision.
Private Members’ Bills
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(4), Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 9 September 2011, 21 October 2011, 25 November 2011 and 20 January 2012.
Briefly, the purpose of the motion is to provide extra days for private Members’ business, in line with the Government’s intention to continue this Session until spring 2012. The House will be aware that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into sitting hours. This is not a debate on the wider issue of process and timings for private Members’ business, which I know the Committee will want to consider.
The previous Government brought forward no extra days in the first Sessions of previous Parliaments. Indeed, in the final Session of the previous Parliament, the then Leader of the House brought forward a resolution that reduced the number of days for private Members’ business. This House must balance the needs of Members to proceed with private Members’ business with other priorities. The Leader of the House has received Back-Bench representations calling for fewer sitting Fridays, to allow Members to spend more time in their constituencies and to reduce the costs of this place. If the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is agreed and we move to annual spring-to-spring Sessions, we will no longer be faced with the issue of increasing or reducing the number of days.
I cannot recall any previous Government bringing forward a motion to increase the number of sitting days. In the interests of Back Benchers, particularly those who have been successful in the ballot and wish to see their Bills taken forward, I am very happy to do so today. That is a proportionate response, and I hope the House will support the motion.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady has misunderstood my comments. Eric Forth killed off hopeless Labour private Members’ Bills, which he did with great relish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has now taken on that role, and does it extremely well indeed—no doubt we will see some more Bills killed.
As legislators, MPs have the opportunity only on a Friday—on a private Members’ Bill day—to put forward their Bills. I should like to counter the view of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She said that only three Members put down private Members’ Bills on the days that we are discussing. In fact, on 9 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) will promote the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will promote his Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill. On 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will promote the Police Terms and Conditions of Service (Redundancy) Bill.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman will admit to slight support for the case of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Of the 112 private Members’ Bills before the House, 51—nearly half—are in the names of the hon. Members who are signatories to the amendment. In fact, their legislative programme is about twice the size of the Government’s.
Mr Bone
There are two things wrong with that. First, when Front Benchers agree on something, it is almost certain not to be the correct way forward. Secondly, the alternative Queen’s speech proposed by certain Members had a reason behind it beyond thinking that all those Bills would be debated.
There are three ways in which private Members’ Bills get debated. Most people think that that happens only through the ballot, but there are also ten-minute rule Bills—they must be debated in the Chamber, when they get an opportunity for Second Reading as a private Member’s Bill—and, of course, presentation Bills. I shall not speak to my amendment, which was not moved because of all the wonderful things that the Deputy Leader of the House said. That is a shame, because I could have quoted what he said in his previous guise as an Opposition spokesman. I will not do that, but he was certainly much more in favour of additional days then than he is now that he is in the Government.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and particularly to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for the way in which he approached it. I know from having argued this case with him, often in similar terms, that it is something he cares passionately about and feels should happen.
I have indicated that a number of things will affect how the House deals with this matter in future, such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will bring more certainty and uniformity to parliamentary Sessions. Also, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, there is the prospect of the Backbench Business Committee being evaluated and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals for a business of the House Committee, which will take on the difficult role of making sure that the interests of all Members are properly taken into account, as far as possible, given that some of them compete. That seems proper.
We also have the Procedure Committee doing something that the Wright Committee suggested but did not have the opportunity to see through. The Wright Committee recognised that there was a problem with how we deal with private Members’ Bills, but it could not come up with a solution in the tight time scale within which it was operating. It therefore suggested that this Parliament should look into the matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee to look at the process for private Members’ Bills. We look forward eagerly to its report.
Various things are in motion and we have attempted to respond to the legitimate request for more time. Let me emphasise that this is the first time that a Government have provided more time for private Members’ Bills in a long Session to enable those who have been successful in the ballot and whose Bills are receiving consideration in Committee to make progress if that is the will of the House—it is the House that decides whether that should be the case.
Mr Hollobone
Is the Deputy Leader of the House going to enlighten us as to the calculation by which he arrived at four extra days?
Mr Heath
It is a matter of balance. It is about looking at the time available and the competing pressures on Members. We came up with a proposal that the House could consider this evening and that proposal is certainly a lot better than anything that has been suggested before. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough accused me of being an accountant, but I really am not.
Mr Heath
Neither am I a lawyer—that is even worse. I was formerly an optician, which is perhaps why I want to focus on the interests of all Members of the House in finding what suits them best.
Let me deal with an issue that the hon. Member for Kettering raised, which is not directly related to private Members’ Bills but is within the same context—the time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee. He said there was some arcane or obscure formula, but there is not: the formula was determined by the Wright Committee. The Government were committed to introducing the reforms proposed by the Wright Committee and that is exactly what we did. We have been clear throughout that we will continue to allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee to enable it to do its work and to provide time for Back-Bench Members of the House. We have done so throughout this Session on the basis of about one day a week. We will continue to do exactly what we have done, and most people believe that the allocation is fair and has been used sensibly.
Mr Nuttall
Is there any particular reason why no Fridays have been allocated in February or March 2012?
Mr Heath
We must remember the interests of Members who have been successful in the ballot and want their legislation to proceed. If they are to succeed in putting something on the statute book, they need time at the end of the process. This is a bicameral Parliament. The Commons must do its work, but another place must scrutinise and revise legislation. It does not make sense to have days for private Members’ Bills abutting the end of the Session, effectively preventing worthy pieces of legislation that have completed scrutiny in the Commons from making further progress. There is a rationale behind the proposals, but that is a matter for the House. I hope that the House will take a view on the matter. I am satisfied that we are making another significant reform to the way in which the House works, again taking time away from the Executive and giving it to Back-Bench Members, which is right, proper and proportionate. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Members’ Salaries
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Hear, hear to what the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said at the end of her speech: I do not think that we want to be in this position again.
I want to pick up on something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said about pay review bodies. Yes, it is true that a succession of reports from such bodies has been accepted by the Government. They deal with teachers, the Prison Service and the health service. Every single one of them says that there should be no increase in pay this year for those who earn more than £21,000. Only one pay review body is proposing an increase for people who earn considerably more than £21,000, and that is the one that deals with Members of Parliament. Why is that happening? Because it is not an entirely independent review, as we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons, and because it was pre-emptively interfered with by the decision of the previous Government and the previous House in setting the parameters for our pay, which has resulted in the anomalous position of the proposal of a 1% pay increase for MPs while everyone else in the public service gets a pay freeze. That is why we have had to come back to the House today.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
On a point of clarification, there has been a lot of disquiet in the debate about Members of Parliament having to vote on their own pay. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether there will be an annual vote on our pay when IPSA takes over this matter?
Mr Heath
There certainly will not be—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) can scoff, but there will not be. It will be a genuinely independent process.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked why we had not tabled an amendment. There is no need for an amendment in order to transfer the matter to IPSA, an entirely independent body, because the legislation is already in place. All that we need is a commencement order. He went on to say that he would refuse to vote this evening. Let me tell him, and anyone who is minded to do the same, that if the House refuses to vote for the motion this evening, we will have a 1% pay increase, and those hon. Members will have to justify that pay increase to their constituents at a time of national constraint. I do not believe that that would be easy to do.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
If the Deputy Leader of the House is so keen for an independent body such as IPSA to control MPs’ salaries, why does he not hand that over from 1 April this year?
Mr Heath
We shall do so when IPSA and the House are ready, and it will be done shortly. We have already given that reply, and I repeat it again. Incidentally, may I tell the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that he will soon receive a reply on pensions, but we have made it clear that MPs’ pensions will be informed by the Hutton review in exactly the same way as pensions in the rest of the public service? It is a matter that the House will soon have the opportunity to discuss.
I was extremely disappointed by part of the contribution from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) in which he appeared to impugn the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That is entirely regrettable and unjustifiable, given his record in opposition and in government, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to withdraw that suggestion.
Mr Mark Field
I was simply trying to inform the House of events that took place two years ago, and was in no way trying to impugn the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was just pointing out that in his former guise he had made the case for independent reviews very strongly in amendments that he had tabled, and I hoped that he would do the same again.
May I briefly ask the deputy Leader of the House whether, if there is a salary freeze in the public sector from April 2013 to April 2014, he will do his best, once MPs’ salaries are in IPSA’s hands, to stop IPSA putting up those salaries, despite the fact that, by that stage, IPSA will be the entirely independent body that he believes the SSRB is not?
Mr Heath
I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say what he said that he had said about my right hon. Friend—I heard something quite different—but we shall have to look at the Official Report to be sure.
Once IPSA has control of Members’ salaries, it will be entirely independent and it will not be for me or for anyone else to tell it how to do its job. Independent assessment is right—we all agree about that. In principle, Members of Parliament should not vote on their own pay. But in a House that does not flinch from having an opinion on the remuneration of others, we cannot just ignore the perception or consequences of an increase of our own pay.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not think that a single Member of Parliament wants this wretched 1% pay rise. What we wanted was the chance as Members of Parliament to do the right thing and table our own motion to decline it. What we are getting, I am afraid, in a robust speech from the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, is Executive posturing at our expense and it does him no favours at all.
Michael Connarty
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is approaching a response to the point that I made. Has it not come to everyone’s notice recently that there might be a problem with public sector expenditure? It has been parroted in every speech in the House since the election. Why did the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House not introduce something to free the SSRB from the formula in which it was trapped, enabling it to make an independent recommendation on our salaries and on which we would not have to vote? Where has the hon. Gentleman been sleeping?
Mr Heath
There are two answers to that. First, I am not a member of the SSRB, so I did not know what recommendation it was going to make. If we tried to adjust the so-called independent formula, would we not be having precisely the same debate about the Executive interfering with the will of the House, which had decided to give to that independent body the right to set our pay? It would be said that we were coming in with a formula of our own. I can just imagine the speeches that would be made, and they would be very similar to the ones that have been made this evening.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about animal intelligence. It occurs to me that if there were a lemmings review body that independently came to the view that a headlong dash into a freezing fjord would be for the best, lemmings ought at least to have an opinion on the matter. What we are providing this evening is an opportunity for Members to consider the consequences before complying with the decision.
In this case, the review body has made it plain that it would not have made the recommendation that it did unless it was constrained to do so. It would have independently come to a view that there should be no increase in our pay this year. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House thinks we should be treated differently and significantly better than others working in the public sector.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am staggered that I should have to make this comment: no one in the House is suggesting that we should take that 1%.
Mr Heath
In that case I am extremely pleased, as it means that we will quickly move to a conclusion of this difficult matter. The commitment to independent review is retained. The anomalous position this year is recognised. We do to ourselves what others have had done to them. It is not a decision for Government; it is a decision for the House. Members must make up their own minds, but in my view— and I do not think I am alone—it is a no-brainer. I hope all right hon. and hon. Members will support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(1) For the period beginning with 1 April 2011 and ending with the relevant day, the rates of—
(a) Members’ salaries, and
(b) additional salaries payable to Members under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as chairs of select or general committees, shall be the same as those salaries as at 31 March 2011.
(2) In paragraph (1) the “relevant day” means—
(a) the day before the day on which the first determination of Members’ salaries by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority comes into effect, or
(b) 31 March 2013, whichever is the earlier.
(3) Paragraphs (9), (10) and (12)(b) of the Resolution of 3 July 2008 (Members’ Salaries (No. 2) (Money)) cease to have effect on the day this Resolution is passed.
(4) The remaining provisions of that Resolution cease to have effect on 1 April 2011.