Local Government Finance

Debate between Greg Clark and Angela Watkinson

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Indeed. The consultation on the new homes bonus is open until March and it is important that my hon. Friend and her councillors contribute to that. That will be the opportunity to consider those views. As I have made clear today, the important step of 100% business rate retention by local government needs to be accompanied by a fundamental look at the methodology, and I hope my hon. Friend will bring her considerable expertise to bear on this matter.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement about transitional relief, which I very much hope the London borough of Havering will benefit from, not just because of its ageing population but because of the increasing demand for children’s services. My right hon. Friend will already know, I am sure, that the 12 inner-London boroughs have more reserves collectively than the 20 outer-London boroughs. Will he reflect further on whether that might be taken into consideration?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestion. Havering is a well-run council and it will benefit from the transitional relief. I think it will want to make a good case for the review of the demographic and other pressures it is facing. My hon. Friend invites me to do what I said I would not do—require councils to dispose of their reserves. If I did that, I would incur the displeasure of some of the colleagues who spoke earlier. I have not done that. It is a matter for local government, but a four-year settlement gives every council the ability to plan ahead and make sure it has the right level of reserves for the circumstances it faces.

Housing

Debate between Greg Clark and Angela Watkinson

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I certainly respect and celebrate the diversity of our cities. It is an essential part of their character. In the requirements that we make, we will ensure that the replacement is within the communities from which something has been taken. It is important to preserve that. I was on the board of an inner-city housing association in central London, and that made an important contribution to the city centre.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned neighbourhood planning. He is absolutely right that that has made a big contribution. We will simplify neighbourhood planning and provide extra funding for councils so that communities can get on and accelerate such plans.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the standard of private rented accommodation. Does he agree that if local authorities were allowed to use council tax application forms to ask tenants to give information about their landlords, it would help to root out rogue landlords, illegal sub-letting and the illegal development of houses in multiple occupation, which sadly are below standard?

[Greg Clark]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s idea. I have not heard that suggestion before, but I will take it seriously. I say to all hon. Members that, for all our debates, there is a unity of purpose across the House in the desire not only to build more homes, but to improve the standards of homes available to people in the rental sector. I encourage everyone, as she has done, to join in ensuring that we can make a big difference in this Parliament to the level of house building.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and Angela Watkinson

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is now clearly on the record and Members can reflect on the view taken by the Committee.

Let us consider the body that would make the judgment about alleged misconduct. Election courts are convened to consider cases that question the outcome of an election, and they do not meet unless a petition has been brought. At the end of the hearings, the court determines whether the election was valid or void, which can take several months to a year. The court has no investigative capacity but hears views from relevant parties. Giving this new role to an election court would mark a significant departure from current practice, and as I said, it lacks the capacity to launch an investigatory process. Furthermore, no appeal is provided for in the new clauses; indeed, the election court is not currently subject to appeal but only to limited judicial review. That raises the question of whether the election court model is the right basis for the proposal. If it is, I suspect that a number of questions could usefully be asked when fleshing out the detail, including whether there should be an appeals mechanism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge proposes to set the number of petitioners necessary for the election court to consider an allegation of misconduct at 500. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed it takes only one person to make a complaint and to have it investigated by the police. Arguably, if the complaint is valid, it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of popular will the House will want to take a view on the right number of petitioners. The new clause increases to 15% the percentage of electors who need to sign the petition to trigger recall, which is higher than for the other conditions. However, 500 is a lower threshold for the initial trigger.

If there are to be such additional triggers in the Bill, the House must consider whether to set out the relationships, or hierarchy, between the different recall conditions. An election court could look at issues that could also be considered by the Committee on Standards, which operates on a trigger, or by the police as the gateway to a criminal conviction. If the defence was rehearsed before an election court, or if the court’s finding was considered prejudicial to an MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for them to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in an election court could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of parliamentary privilege. New clause 3 includes a provision stating that section 9 of the Bill of Rights will not be affected. I understand that this is intended to ensure that privileged matters are not the subject of judgment by the electoral court. However, the use of the word “affecting” could be read in one of two contradictory ways by a court: either as a statement that privilege matters are excluded; or as an admission that the Bill overrides the Bill of Rights, and therefore impacts on privilege but only for these limited purposes, thereby inviting an election court to consider privileged issues as part of a case. If an exclusion is desired, it could benefit from clarification.

In conclusion, the Government were clear on Second Reading that we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment. My intention has been to summarise and highlight some of the points the current drafting raises. It is right that the House votes in full knowledge of the technical and policy challenges that remain, as well as the principles behind the amendments. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the remaining part of this debate.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I support the principle of the Bill: to enable the recall of MPs between general elections if they are considered to have conducted themselves in a grossly unacceptable or inappropriate manner that has led either to a custodial sentence or a suspension from the House of Commons for a period of at least 21 sitting days. Sentences of more than 12 months already lead to automatic disqualification under section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981. A third trigger has been proposed, in new clause 2, for a petition signed by 500 people to present allegations of improper behaviour. Presumably, this would not relate to illegal conduct, which would have already led to arrest and charge. I urge caution, because I think this opens up a whole debate on the interpretation of the word “improper”, which will mean different things to different people. An MP’s prolonged absence from the House of Commons without good reason would not be a criminal offence, but it would leave constituents effectively unrepresented and might justify a recall petition on the grounds of wholly improper conduct.

I did not support proposals in Committee for recall by 5% of the electorate for any reason. I predict that “any reason” could comprise such a wide spectrum as to invite frivolous petitions and could include, for example, disapproval of an MP’s political or religious views on controversial subjects such as: a Member’s sexual orientation, entering a same-sex marriage, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, smoking, hunting, alcohol, drugs, gambling and local planning matters. We could all think of any number of reasons that would give rise to frequent vexatious recall attempts of MPs with views that are unpopular with certain sections of their electorate. Recall could be generated easily by well-funded pressure groups or individuals, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.

I am also concerned that 500 constituents would form a very small percentage of the electorate. In a constituency of 85,000, 500 would be way below 1%. I have not done the exact calculation, but it would be somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I am sure somebody is scribbling away already to give me the exact figure. That threshold is far too low, and for that reason I will not support new clause 2, new clause 5 or the related amendment 34. Every Member of this House will know that an accusation against one of our number reflects on each and every one of us, and on Parliament as a whole. The blame falls collectively and the media rejoice in referring to MPs as though all 650 of us are guilty of something of which one or a very small number stand accused. We need to guard against a “guilty until proven innocent” culture, where an MP may be destroyed reputationally and financially, and then, when cleared, finds that the damage is irreparable.

New clause 4 proposes an MP’s pledge. This has some merit, although I have always assumed that its contents were implied when an MP is sworn into this House. The pledge would reinforce that, although I do not take comfort, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) does, that its contents would reassure the general public or help to deter vexatious accusations.