Business of the House
Helen Goodman Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point and he is right, as we try in many contexts to support our high streets and the traders and small businesses on them. One of the ways we can do that, which the Government have done, is to require greater notice of roadworks and for utility companies to work together in a more co-ordinated fashion, so that roads are not constantly dug up for one purpose, with someone else then coming along and digging them up for another. Giving notice and co-ordinating work is important, but I will ask my hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government to update him on anything else we are doing in this context to support high streets.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I was disappointed that the Leader of the House said nothing about the future programme for Westminster Hall in his statement, but he has had time to think about my question. Will he bring forward the Westminster Hall debates to 10 June? He has been eloquent about the need for this House to hold the Government to account. Here is an opportunity to show that he is right behind that.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will understand that the provisions for sittings in Westminster Hall are determined by Standing Orders. It is not in my gift to change Standing Orders; it is a matter for the House, but as she rightly asks the question, I will look at what provisions in Standing Orders permit us to bring debates forward in Westminster Hall more speedily after the opening of a new Session.
Amendment of Standing Orders
Helen Goodman Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Walker
The Backbench Business Committee is known for its independence of thought. I rather agree with my hon. Friend, who is a stalwart of the Procedure Committee and one of its leading lights. Once again, he has made an incisive contribution.
Because we do not have all night, I am now going to make a little progress. We also propose a new Standing Order—again, resisted by the Government—allowing the Backbench Business Committee to organise its own time through a motion proposed at the commencement of one of its days of business, regulating the business that follows. Such a change would enable the Committee to make provision for decisions on a series of motions and amendments to those motions to be taken together at the end of a debate, at the normal moment of interruption or before.
I shall canter through the next part of my speech. I shall have to read it, because it is quite complex, and I would not want to make a deliberate or unnecessary mistake. Let me give two examples in which that power might have been useful. In the case of recent debates on the sitting hours of the House, the need to take a complex series of votes before the usual time of interruption required the sacrifice of an hour and a half of debating time. The debate on assisted dying, which was scheduled to last an hour and a half, had to be voluntarily stopped 20 minutes early so that the first amendment could be put and voted on, in order to allow a second vote to be taken before the 7 pm deadline. The power might also provide for a timetable for decisions to be made on a series of separate motions at fixed points, or for a day simply to be divided between two or three debates. That would be entirely convenient to the House because it would make everything reasonably predictable.
In anticipation of resistance from the Government, the Committee has proposed a fairly formidable set of constraints on the use of the power, which I shall set out now. I can see that the House is waiting with bated breath to hear about this series of protections.
First, the decision to use the power must be a unanimous decision by the Committee, made, obviously, at a quorate meeting with due notice given. Secondly, the Committee— unlike the Government—is given no power to stretch a day, except in so far as Divisions might run past the normal moment of interruption. It cannot extend the length of a sitting on Thursday. Thirdly, and most importantly, the House would be free to disagree with any proposal made by the Committee at the start of the day to which it applied. The proposal would be put without debate, but could be divided on and defeated. If the House did not like it, the House could reject it.
So there is no possibility, in a perfect world—the world that I would like to see become a reality, although it is not going to become a reality tonight—of the Backbench Business Committee’s abusing its power to force the House to make unpalatable decisions in an unpalatable way. The whole Committee, and the whole House, must want the business to which this power might be applied to be conducted in a rational and predictable way. It is not applicable to anything other than Back-Bench business: it cannot affect Government business, Opposition business, or private Members’ Bills.
I appreciate that there is resistance to this. There are many here who feel that the Government, motivated by good will, would want to ensure whenever possible that the Backbench Business Committee was able to achieve its objectives, and that there would be helpful Whips supporting them in the process. This is where I diverge slightly from the view of my opposite number, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee. This is a point of principle and the—slow—direction of travel at the moment is for this House to take back more powers for itself. It was the case about 110 years ago that if the Government of the day wanted to transact their business in this place, they had to come and seek our permission. Over the past 110 years we have given up successive powers through Standing Orders so now we are in the position of begging the Government for time, or relying on the good will of Government to give us that time.
This is what I suggest: I am not going to press the House to a Division tonight, so the amendments put down by the Government will carry the day, but I am convinced that the day is coming—slowly—when this House will have the courage and desire to take back some of its own power and we will have the self-confidence not to rely on the Whips to transact our business for us on those days when it is our business. I accept that there will be Government days for business, and that is fine, but I think that on those days when there is Back-Bench business—those days when it is our business, when this place comes back to us—in a few years’ time we will have the self-confidence and courage to say, “Actually, we can handle our own affairs in a grown-up, mature and successful fashion.”
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for giving way. Surely what we are talking about here is the House growing up and our being treated like grown-ups—being able to vote as well as debate? I therefore wonder why the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—who chairs it absolutely marvellously—is not going to press the House to a Division this evening.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Helen Goodman Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Gentleman has summed up why we have waited three and a half years for the Bill, and why we do not want to wait any longer. We want to get the Bill going.
I believe that the purpose of part 2 is to prevent a small number of large organisations from channelling money in a way that would affect the outcomes of elections, irrespective of the level at which that happens. Its purpose is not to upset the local charities with which we all work, but to enable us to work with those charities to secure the best possible deal for our constituents and communities.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
A new low has been reached in the handling of the Bill. I do not think that we have seen such a shambles since the last occasion on which the Leader of the House was involved with a piece of legislation. At least on that occasion there was a pause when the Government decided to go back to the drawing board. This time, we seem to be being expected to debate a Bill which the Minister himself, from the Dispatch Box, has said is not adequate and must be changed. I am pleased to see that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is in the Chamber, because I feel that the Committee should consider the process issues connected with the Bill.
It is peculiarly ironic that the Minister, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), is a Liberal Democrat. One would think that, of all the things that the Liberal Democrats could defend, one would be liberal democracy. This is about the nature of our democracy, and I really think that the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition should learn to stand up to the Tory members. The Bill is clearly a highly political piece of legislation, aimed at defending Tory donors and attacking the civil society groups that might support any other political activity and any other political parties.
It is particularly worrying that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), has admitted in reply to a parliamentary question that the first time she spoke to voluntary sector organisations about the Bill was on Monday last week, at least two months after the publication of the Bill.
I do, of course, support amendment 47. I want to say a few things about my experiences working in the voluntary sector, as they help to explain why I am so horrified by the contents of clause 26. Before I was elected to this House I worked in three voluntary sector organisations: the Runnymede Trust, the Church of England Children’s Society and the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries, which I ran. The Church of England Children’s Society, in particular, did a lot of campaigning work alongside all the many practical projects it ran. It is perverse to put a limit on the amount that voluntary sector organisations can spend on campaigning in the run-up to a general election because that is when they can most effectively influence the political process, as that is when the political parties are writing their manifestos and when candidates are standing for election and re-election.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the explanatory notes. One of the reasons why so many voluntary organisations are nervous about these provisions is outlined in paragraph 59:
“The definition of ‘for electoral purposes’ does not rely solely on the intent of the third party; the effect of the expenditure must also be considered.”
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of paragraph 59, because I, too, had underlined it. That makes the situation almost completely unpredictable for voluntary sector organisations.
Helen Goodman
Yes, but that is the whole problem. They may not say, “Vote Liberal Democrat”, but if they say, “Don’t vote for candidates who voted for an increase in tuition fees,” everybody will be pretty clear what that means. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would be perfectly well able to go to court and say, “The effect of the expenditure must also be considered and it is clearly discriminatory against Liberal Democrat candidates.” That is the problem.
Andrew Gwynne
The sentence before the one I previously quoted mentions
“enhancing the standing of a registered political party or parties or candidates.”
In my hon. Friend’s opinion, would the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledging not to increase tuition fees on behalf of the National Union of Students have increased the electoral opportunities of that candidate in the 2010 general election?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is pointing to the very serious practical problems that everybody—both the politicians standing for election and voluntary sector organisations—will face.
Lady Hermon
The intervention of the Deputy Leader of the House has, not for the first time today, added confusion. We are talking about clause 26, which states that “a course of conduct” could be covered if
“it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate.”
Therefore a charity that does not mention the name of a party or candidate could be covered.
Helen Goodman
That is right.
In the run-up to general elections, voluntary organisations often send e-mails and letters asking people where they stand on certain subjects, and after receiving the answers they send another message to their supporters saying, “Well, candidate X stands for what we want and candidate Y stands against it. If you think this is a big issue, we advise you to vote for candidate X, not candidate Y.”
Stephen McPartland
If a charity advises their supporters to vote for candidate X rather than candidate Y, that could affect the outcome of an election and it would therefore have to be included within regulated expenditure under current charity law.
John Cryer
What the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) says is right, but over the past few days and weeks we have all been reading the briefings from charities and they are not saying “If we do this it is controlled expenditure, and if we do that, it is not.” The problem is the doubt, and that will be resolved in court cases that will probably run for years, unless this Bill is heavily amended, which we are expecting from the Government.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is right. The problems of substance and process in the preparation of this Bill are numerous and inter-connected. People working in voluntary organisations are always annoyed that politicians of all stripes want to associate themselves with their good works but often want to ignore the hard messages they receive from those organisations. They want to ignore the lessons based on the wide range of practical experience the voluntary sector can bring to the table. This Bill is institutionalising cloth ears on the part of politicians.
It is ironic that part 2 of this Bill should come from this Government, because when the Conservatives were trying to get elected they were proclaiming the big society. Vladimir Putin would be proud to introduce this Bill.
Caroline Lucas
New clause 10, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and for St Ives (Andrew George), would require the Government to carry out a proper assessment of the effect of third-party campaigning on UK elections, because I want to know what problem the Government think they are trying to fix. Alongside the rest of part 2, the changes made by clause 26 would silence legitimate campaigning voices in the run-up to elections. Equally alarmingly, Ministers are trying to push through this clampdown without a shred of evidence that there is a problem with third sector organisations exerting an undue influence over elections in the first place. As many hon. Members have said, the best way to proceed would be to ditch the whole of part 2 and only introduce changes for which there is a robust evidence base—one that would attract cross-party support—and which could take place after consultation with all organisations affected. That is what new clause 10 proposes.
Some people say that organisations such as 38 Degrees are scaremongering and that the Government’s concessions demonstrate that everything will be fine, but Ros Baston, a solicitor specialising in political and election law, told a number of MPs at a meeting that I hosted this morning that they would be advised to read the briefing from the Electoral Commission itself. Many hon. Members have already quoted from that, so I will not add to that. However, I would point hon. Members in the direction of Sir Stephen Bubb, the chief executive officer of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, who says that even after these vague concessions have been promised
“the Bill remains fundamentally flawed. Our issue with it is not simply how it affects charities, but the fact it suggests they, and not other groups in society, are to blame for the public’s loss of trust in politics.”
He is very right in that assessment.
I strongly believe that there is a case for revisiting the current legislation, introduced by Labour in 2000 with the primary aim of preventing the emergence of US-style front groups working for particular candidates or parties, because the existing legislation has already been criticised for being heavy-handed in how it goes about achieving what is, of course, a laudable aim. As a result, some fiercely non-party political organisations are already saying that even the current rules have had some dampening effect on the freedom of charities and civil society organisations to campaign on policy issues—not for any political party or candidate—around the time of elections.
The crucial point must be to proceed on the basis not of hearsay but of a sound evidence base. It is right to examine the effect that third-party campaigning has had at elections in the UK and whether it has exerted undue influence over elections. It is also right to look at whether the activities of charities and civil society groups have harmed the public perception of the political system, as the Cabinet Office contends. But such a review must surely also look at whether the opposite is closer to the truth. It must ask whether existing rules are already too restrictive: do they make it unnecessarily difficult for the public to hear the opinions of those who might have different views from particular parties or candidates; are they imposing disproportionate limits on the ability of charities and others to engage in political and policy debate as one way of pursuing their charitable purposes; and are they preventing people from getting together to seek to influence the policies and positions of those who want to become their elected representatives?
Susan Elan Jones
My hon. Friend could well write the episode of the soap opera that I was describing.
As a co-chair of the all-party group on civil society and volunteering, along with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and Baroness Pitkeathley, I was delighted to see the voluntary sector speak up loudly on this issue—rightly so, given the attacks on civic society in this Bill. I know that many hon. Members have been deluged with e-mails, letters, telephone calls and requests for meetings about this. We know the NCVO’s serious concerns from its briefing, and it raised the specific point of how damaging it feels the legislation would be for expenditure thresholds and activities and how they relate to small charitable groups.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. One thing voluntary groups do is use campaigns to raise their profiles so that they can raise funds to do more practical work. Their campaigning activities are part of all their work and it all fits together for them. The Bill will damage not only their ability to speak but, potentially, their ability to do some practical work.
Susan Elan Jones
That is absolutely right.
Many concerned voices were heard in last week’s debate and many thoughtful speeches, too, none more so than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I do not quite concur with one small aspect of his speech, however. He said that
“one of the most wonderful parts of my life experience as a Member of Parliament is when we come towards a general election, and all those different bodies start to get hold of us, lobby us, knock on our doors, phone us and send letters—‘Come to our meeting. You will not get our vote unless we know exactly what you are doing on this.’ Someone on the opposite side then says exactly the same thing”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 205.]
In truth, although at times such meetings will be bliss itself and will be meaningful, sometimes they will frustrate and annoy many Members and the Government—any Government. That is why it is correct that the right of such organisations to do this must be protected at all costs so that they can put forward their view unhindered, without being entangled in red tape, and can speak truth to power unhindered by the certainties of this Bill.
I wonder how the Bill would affect the pro and anti-HS2 lobbies, the campaign for digital hearing aids, the campaign for the rights of Gurkhas to settle in this country and some of the campaigns run by the Royal British Legion.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Sir Edward, on the feast of St Pulcheria, who died on this day in 453 AD. It is the 1,560th anniversary of her death.
Helen Goodman
Having read the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I wonder whether he is trying to take us back to the politics of those years.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.
The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that British Telecom, Arriva, Stagecoach, Heathrow, Virgin Care, Tata Steel and farmers in his constituency are all in receipt of large amounts of public money. Is he really saying that none of them may make statements that could be taken as interventions in a general election?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is ignoring the detail of the Bill and carrying on with the absurd scaremongering to which we have been listening for more than a week. A farmer in my constituency who is in receipt of subsidies would have to register as a third party and, according to the terms of clause 27, spend more than £5,000 to be in any way affected by my amendment. If only the farmers in my constituency were so rich that they were scattering £5,000 hither and yon, my own campaign might be the beneficiary of such largesse.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.
We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.
Helen Goodman
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is talking out of his hat. The fact is that a lot of large private-sector businesses are donors to political parties, and that is an intervention. Is he saying that if they had been in receipt of public money, they should not be making these interventions? When they give money they are also making statements, not only about individual candidates but about parties.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is wrong to say that I am talking out of my hat because if I did, Sir Edward, I would be out of order and you would therefore not allow it to take place. Third parties that merely donate to other political organisations are not third parties under the terms of the Bill. To be a third party under the terms of the Bill one needs to be campaigning in such a way that one is advancing the campaign of an individual in a particular constituency or a political party across a number of constituencies. Under the terms of the Bill, giving £10,000 to the Conservative party does not require registration with the Electoral Commission as a third party. All it requires is for someone to register their donation and be a legitimate British company, as covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill is limited in scope. It cuts the amount that third parties may spend, and my amendment would ensure that people receiving Government funding do not become third parties. That seems not only reasonable but something that the Opposition in particular should support.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is public support for candidates in this country. We have a mixed economy because we all get free delivery of our manifestos to households in our constituencies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right that there is a free post, but parties are not publicly funded. They receive no cash for the free post; it is done without any cash transfer to parties, and they have no control of the money that comes to them. My point that parties are not funded by the state is right. There is Short money and Cranborne money, which I mentioned, but that is specifically for parliamentary activities, not campaigning.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The British Legion will not become a third party in a general election because it is against charity regulations for it to do so. It would be an outrage if one of the most admired and apolitical bodies in this country suddenly started saying that people should vote Conservative—let alone say that people should vote Labour, heaven forfend! Charities are not there to intervene in general elections. They have specific tax benefits and their ability to fundraise is dependent on them being charitable, not political, and there is a clear difference. There is no question of the Royal British Legion becoming a third party in a general election. That is the classic scare story that we hear again and again from the Opposition, who wish to obfuscate and confuse matters because they are worried that their trade union masters will, under this clause, have the amount they can spend reduced. They hide it; they camouflage it under this complaint on behalf of the Church of England, the Royal British Legion, and so on.
We should be concerned about third parties spending money in a way that is less regulated than political parties themselves, or having the ability to spend more and with lower effective limits on what they are able to do. The clause succeeds in doing that and would make no difference at all to charities or the Church of England. My amendment would further tighten the clause. As I have said, the Opposition should be enthusiastic about it, because it is wrong for Government money to be used by third parties when they have received it not for political activity but for their general activities of whatever kind.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Government and the taxpayer hand out very large amounts of money to third parties. Therefore, those parties should say either, “We will not take those funds,” or, “We want to be free to campaign.” They have the choice.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman reveals to the Committee that he does not understand how voluntary sector finances work. Voluntary sector organisations have restricted and unrestricted money. When organisations such as Shelter get money for public sector contracts, it is restricted and must be used on the service. The money used for campaigning comes from voluntary donations.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is not entirely accurate. If she were to trouble herself to look at the NCVO accounts, she would see that the largest contribution of non-allocated money—£500,000—is from the Government. When the NCVO spends unrestricted money on campaigning, there is a very good chance that it is Government money, which seems improper. I am well aware of the distinction between restricted and non-restricted money. Unfortunately, many Government grants are not sufficiently restricted and therefore can be used to lobby the Government. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) challenged me on that—I am concerned about that too, but it is not the specific point I am making.
Angela Smith
I thank my hon. Friend. What he said provides further evidence to show how this Bill was not properly thought through before it was brought before us. It shows, too, the amount of work that should have been done and the issues that should have been sorted out before it was brought here.
Helen Goodman
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—I hope so—of the paper produced by the House of Commons Library, which shows that under the Bill’s proposals, the limits on third party spending in Wales are coming down to £24,000 and to £10,000 in Northern Ireland. That would mean that in Wales and Northern Ireland, it would be impossible to employ anybody in a voluntary sector organisation to run any kind of campaign for one year in four.
Angela Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.
As I was saying, our amendment is designed to return us to the status quo on thresholds and to help protect smaller charities and groups from being caught by legislation, making it virtually impossible for them to participate in the democratic process. That must be right, and the Electoral Commission has suggested, as I pointed out earlier, that the threshold should be raised. Let me quote from the evidence given by Jenny Watson to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
“We said again in our written evidence that one practical thing that could be done to make a difference to the Bill would be to raise the thresholds at which people have to register, and we have a particular concern about that as it relates to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because those thresholds are low.”
Let me ask the Government why the voice of the regulator is being so badly ignored in respect of this legislative process. Why is the Electoral Commission being ignored? We will listen with interest to the Minister’s response on that point.
As far as the limits for controlled expenditure are concerned, our position is clear: the limits need to be defined in the context of meaningful reform of the funding of political parties and of their ability to throw big money at election campaigns. In other words, the Government need to withdraw the Bill and to rethink. They need to enter into meaningful negotiations with the other political parties and to commit to proper consultation and scrutiny of proposals as they emerge, in relation to both political parties and the third sector.
In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to think again about not just specific points in this clause, but something more fundamental. The Minister is a Liberal Democrat; I ask him to take back to his Conservative partners the message that the Government’s whole approach to this issue needs to be looked at again. “Think again” is our message to the Government, who should commit to discussions designed to produce meaningful reform within which we can place sensible changes to the rules on third party funding—changes that we can consult on with confidence, knowing that we have done the right thing overall in changing our politics for the better.
Summer Adjournment
Helen Goodman Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My constituent, Mrs Rene Chung, is not an illegal immigrant, although that is how she has been treated, in part, by the Home Office and the UK Border Agency—I am glad to see that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is in his place.
Mrs Rene Chung is a Canadian citizen and she has been living in the UK, perfectly legally, since 2008. She is married to a British citizen and she is a top-flight business woman. She contributes to Britain’s economic performance, and no doubt to the revenues going into the Exchequer through the tax system. For her job it is essential that she travels. The chief executive of the company for which she works—an international, executive search and selection company—recently wrote to the Home Secretary as follows:
“Ms Chung works as a Senior Consultant for me, and as a valued member of my company, she holds expert knowledge about our clients and their businesses, and she also has valuable experience of interviewing and assessing the suitability of candidates for our clients. Ms Chung is also responsible for business development and she is required to support me in “pitch” meetings which involves visiting clients’ offices all over Europe. Our business travel occurs about two times a month, and is usually planned at very short notice i.e. one week notice or less. It is important for me to stress that Ms Chung’s ability to carry out her basic job responsibilities is directly linked to her ability to travel. Ms Chung has performed extremely well in my company for the past four years, and she has proven to be an asset to the company. It is therefore important for me to request that Ms Chung is allowed to continue travelling regularly for business.”
I will not detain the House with the details of Rene Chung’s case, but I want to highlight three points. First, Mrs Chung has been waiting for more than a year for the renewal of her spouse visa application—in my view, an unacceptable length of time. Secondly, the Home Office has already made a disastrous error in handling her case by incorrectly deeming Mrs Chung’s application to have been withdrawn—the Immigration Minister has apologised for that in his latest letter to me. Thirdly, and most disgracefully of all, when Mrs Chung recently returned to Gatwick, following a business visit to Europe, she was locked up for six hours and released only after her passport had been confiscated. Such conduct is more redolent of an authoritarian police state than what we expect in a democratic Britain that pays proper regard to basic human rights.
When it comes to supporting economic growth in the business community, the Home Office is wholly apart from the rest of the Government, who are doing all they can to support economic growth in the business community—some signs of success are, I hope, beginning to show through. On the other hand, as far as I can see, the Home Office takes absolutely no account of the need to support the business community, including individual business men and women trying to contribute to our economic growth. It is blindingly obvious that it should introduce a fast-track procedure for processing applications for visa renewals of people with a clear legal right to be in this country and for whom travel is essential to their work. I put it to the Home Secretary that fast-track processing should be put in place forthwith. In cases such as Mrs Chung’s, I see no reason why visa renewal applications should not be processed within a maximum of four weeks.
Finally, I want to make a complaint to the Immigration Minister about a recent answer he has given to me. I appreciate that he has probably got the worst job in the Government and is probably grossly overburdened, but on 11 July he gave me a seriously misleading answer. I tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking when I would receive a reply to a total of four letters I had sent to her about Mrs Rene Chung’s case. The Minister replied:
“I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 July 2013.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 367W.]
The answer was misleading, because it related only to the first letter I wrote to the Home Secretary. I have received no reply to the remaining three letters. I ask my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister to make the appropriate correction in Hansard and, most particularly, to reply forthwith to the three outstanding letters I have sent to the Home Secretary about Mrs Rene Chung’s case, to return her passport to her forthwith and to renew her spouse visa application forthwith.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just learned that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has laid an order under the Communications Act 2003 to reduce the number of public service broadcasting reviews from a regular review every five years to perhaps only one a decade. The order is not available in the Vote Office and cannot be read on the parliamentary website. It is less than an hour before the House rises for the last time for several weeks. Can you give me any guidance or advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, on what to do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately not. It is a matter for the Minister, but I am sure that if anything is untoward, the Vote Office will investigate. The point is certainly on the record now, however, and I am sure we are all aware of the communication—or rather, on this occasion, the lack of it.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Helen Goodman Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, I fear Labour also misunderstands the nature of the relationship of a director to a company, and, where a director is a Member of Parliament, the relationship between those two responsibilities. Someone may act as a director and have a responsibility to the company as a whole in certain areas—I freely admit that for one year in the more than 16 years I have been in this House, I was a director of a company while also a Member of Parliament. I entered into an explicit contract that I would not undertake any activities for that company that drew on my interests and responsibilities as an MP—[Interruption.] No, we did not publish the contract, but I entered into a contract that made it clear that where there was any conflict of interest, the company would expect me to declare it and remove myself from any activity with the company concerned. I was very clear about that, so the question of a conflict of interest between my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and to the company would not arise.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has described beautifully how the contract he drew up with the company protected the interest of the company, but not how it protected the interests of this House or of his constituents. Even the right hon. Gentleman must know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the point.
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, I was explaining to the House how it is perfectly straightforward not to prejudice one’s responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. Members in this House are very clear about that and that is why such matters are published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fact that the hon. Lady has stood up and said that he who pays the piper calls the tune will be an entertaining thought for us to take forward and I look forward to my hon. Friends making that very clear.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth knows that I have written to the Leader of the Opposition about the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, published today, to say that if he and his colleagues wish to follow through on the principle initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that members of trade unions should be able to exercise a deliberate choice about their participation in a political fund, the Bill is available. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come forward and say whether or not he will do that. If he does not, we will know that it was all rhetoric with no follow-through.
The conclusion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that Members of Parliament should remain free to have paid employment unrelated to their role as MPs. That was widely accepted, and I have seen no evidence or argument that questions the validity of the conclusion and the hon. Gentleman mentioned no individual case that prejudiced that conclusion. We have clear rules on lobbying and the registration of interests that were put before the House by the previous Labour Government and agreed in April 2009. As we heard, the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who was on the Government Benches at that time, supported that and was against the exclusion of other earnings. The then Government did not go further down that path and they were right not to do so.
We have mechanisms for investigating any alleged breach of the rules and proper procedures for taking action where necessary. The Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is in his place and if he wished, he could take action—although I suspect he would not need to do so, as no case arises. I do not think we have any lack of rules that would enable us to act when any conflict of interest took place. We do not need new and arbitrary rules.
John Hemming
The last such resignation was in the 1960s, when the practice went against the then Government and was brought to an end. The second job of being a Minister is clearly demanding, and it undermines that Member’s constituency activity.
The wording of the motion is absolutely dreadful in that it would pick up one of my businesses but not the other. Why is that? What is the sense in picking up one structure of ownership and not another? The Opposition are also suggesting that we should not take the earned money, but they have no problem with those Members who are shareholders taking unearned income. Traditionally, Labour Members thought that earned income was more acceptable than unearned income, but they now seem to be arguing that we should have our unearned income. That is easy enough for me to structure, as I am in control of my corporate structures, but it is difficult for other people in other circumstances. The whole thing is frankly absurd. It drives us on again to what I think the hon. Member for Derby North was arguing for—the development of a political class. He did say that. He said that the Labour party wants a political class—a concept according to which we work only in politics and do not have any experience outside it.
Helen Goodman
No, no, no, no—the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. It is perfectly possible to do as I did and have three different jobs before entering this House. That gave me more than 20 years of working experience in different institutions, which I can bring to bear on the politics—without having another paid job alongside being a Member of Parliament.
John Hemming
The point I am making is a very simple one: I do not think we should have a political class. An Opposition Member has called for a political class—he said those words, and I see nods around the Chamber—but I think that is very dangerous. It is dangerous to have a situation where external bodies beyond the Government, who do control votes in Parliament, control people in Parliament. Apart from being extremely badly drafted, the motion drives things further towards a political class. Thus people who have not had real jobs go through the special adviser process and all that sort of thing, ending up not being in the real world. That moves against the concept of people being able to be Members of Parliament for a short period of time, and what do we gain from it? Nothing.
Mr Buckland
I had better not give way any further because I am running out of time. I accept that it is for individual Members to make judgments about the balances they have to strike—believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I view it as a great honour and privilege to serve the people of my constituency, and I think about that every working moment. However, I do feel that I strike a fair balance in the work I do. I am available for my constituents and I work as hard as any other MP to fight for their interests. Bringing into this place the work that I have done in the past and the experience that I have gained, and keeping in touch with it in the way I do during the recess is beneficial.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman, too, is being sincere in what he is saying, but does he not think it slightly incongruous that this House is the last place where what he describes is possible? Even in the other place people are not allowed to be part of the Chamber and part of the judiciary.
Mr Buckland
I do not think that is actually right, because the office of recorder was not included in the exemptions in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, of course, was passed by the previous Labour Government. I make no apology for that, because I believe that individual—
Business of the House
Helen Goodman Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I cannot offer my hon. Friend the prospect of an immediate debate, but he used his opportunity at business question last week, if I recall correctly, to raise this issue. I am pleased that he has found that his representations have been successful.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Facebook is providing a meeting place for paedophiles by continuing to publish on its pages indecent images of children, and it receives income from advertisements displayed alongside these pages from many household-name companies. The internet summit of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not even address the question of child protection on social media. When is she going to come to the House to tell us how she is going to bring this disgusting practice to an end?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady raises an issue of the greatest importance to Members, and indeed to people across the country and especially to parents. I will, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was not present at the summit meeting with internet companies, but I know that she is working very hard on these issues. I particularly welcome the additional support given to the Internet Watch Foundation, which was previously based in my constituency and continues to operate out of Cambridgeshire. I hope that we will be able to work together across the House to ensure that we take every practical measure we can to reduce child exploitation and abuse.
Business of the House
Helen Goodman Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have seen the early-day motions to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot promise an immediate debate but as he knows, this is a matter that we have considered in the House and no doubt we will have an opportunity to do so again soon. I know that he believes, as I do, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken important steps to ensure that petrol at the pumps is now 10p a litre lower in price than it would have been if the fuel escalator under the previous Government had been carried forward.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
During the recess I tried to live on £18 a week, which is what my constituents will have once the bedroom tax is introduced. I found that I ran out of food before the end of the week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the bedroom tax and its impact on nutrition?
Mr Lansley
I think the House had an opportunity, on a motion tabled by the nationalist parties, to debate the housing benefit structure and the under-occupancy deduction. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues felt so strongly that that was the most important issue to debate, I am surprised that they did not choose to bring it forward for debate next Tuesday, as they could have done.
HEALTH
Helen Goodman Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart
Yes, I agree. In the last month, some 700 members of the Afghan national security forces have been dismissed as they are considered unreliable, and the Afghan forces are taking a very high casualty rate, which is greater than our own.
It is extremely tricky to withdraw from a military operation. There are two years to go now, and I am sure our Army will be up to it, because we are good at tricky operations. I want our soldiers to leave with their heads held high, feeling that at least some of the sacrifice has been worth it.
When we went into Afghanistan in 2001 and again in 2003, the mission was simple: to stop the threat that emanated from that country against our country and our allies. Other missions that have been talked about—bringing democracy, countering drugs, improving the lot of women, education—are extremely laudable, but they were not the mission our soldiers were sent into Afghanistan to achieve.
I want us to leave Afghanistan having got it into a condition whereby it will never hurt our country or our allies again. That is the mission I want us to achieve by the time our soldiers leave. If we do that, we will have achieved something. If we do that, at least it will be some compensation to those 438 families who have lost their loved ones. If we do not succeed in doing that, it will not be the fault of our courageous and gallant sailors, airmen and soldiers who have fought this bitter conflict for 11 years. We must not blame them if we do not succeed.
I want to end by sending my personal best wishes to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting at the moment. On behalf of everyone in this House, I wish them the very best at Christmas. When we go on recess, their job does not change. They are still mentoring the Afghan national police and Afghan national army, they are still patrolling and they are still putting their lives at risk. I spare a thought also for the families at home who remain terrified that the people from their family who have been sent, at our behest, to do their duty in Afghanistan might not come back or might be hurt. God bless them all, and merry Christmas to them.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and say to him how much he epitomises the benefits to the House of having people with so much experience and so much to contribute to our understanding of military matters?
I wish to talk about the economic situation of my constituency. Some 100 years ago, the north-east was the main driver of economic development not just in this country, but in the whole of the British empire. Today, the north-east is still the most successful exporting region outside London. That is because it has the largest car plant in Europe; it has the largest chemical plant in the UK; it is leading in electric vehicle manufacturing; it is at the centre of sustainable energy innovation; and it can lead in the new industry of offshore wind. So I wish to pose the question: in this Government’s quest to restart growth, why do they not look to the north-east?
In order fully to develop the north-east’s potential, we need a region-wide approach that brings together the public and private sectors; concentration on those industrial clusters where the region’s university research and development can be translated into innovation; skills and retraining for adults and young people, so that people losing jobs in public administration can reasonably take up new opportunities in the private sector and so that young people are given a fair chance; a fair share of the Government’s infrastructure spend, particularly to improve transport and connectivity; and investment in housing and place making.
Unfortunately, what the Government have delivered to the north-east is massive cuts. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the scale of the cuts in 2010 was huge—in 2010 it came to £2.8 billion, which was 7% of the value of the regional economy. The cuts were also unfair; the cuts to the north-east’s local authorities were three times the scale of those in the south-east. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took £1,000 from every man, woman and child in the region. The cuts in the north-east are even larger than the cuts being faced by the Spanish people.
I had some new analysis undertaken by Oxford Economics on the second-round effects—the knock-on effects on the private sector—to see why we have such a high level of shop closures on the high streets in our region. Its analysis showed that there had been a further £1 billion in lost output; that is a 10% drop in the size of the regional economy. If the International Monetary Fund is right, the second-round effects are even greater, at £3.5 billion.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, and I accept that difficult struggles lie ahead. However, on skills, does she not accept that the number of apprenticeships has doubled in her area? On infrastructure, does she not accept that this Government have done the A1 strongly, all the way to Newcastle and potentially beyond? The north-east also had the third largest increase in employment in the whole country in the last quarter.
Helen Goodman
I am afraid I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I was about to point out that last year, of the £40 billion infrastructure budget put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the north-east received 0.03%. As a consequence, unemployment in the north-east is the highest in the entire country at 9.9%. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that public sector job losses so far are already at 45,000 and Oxford Economics projects that total job losses will be 68,000, whereas 46,000 new jobs will be created. So, in 10 years’ time, we will be left with a jobs deficit of 20,000.
The Government talked a lot about rebalancing the economy but have tipped the scales further against the north. Given the opportunities for growth in the north-east, that is at the whole country’s expense. [Interruption.] If I may say so, it would be more polite for the Deputy Leader of the House to listen to my speech rather than to the chuntering of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer use the chance he had in the autumn statement? On 5 December, he announced new capital spend in the region of £142 million, with £64 million spent on road improvements near Gateshead and £78 million on housing. At first blush, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, it sounded quite good. In fact, however, once again it was only 3% of the total capital spending proposed by the Chancellor.
Let us look at the other measures taken by the Chancellor, which will dwarf that capital spending in the long run. Yesterday, we heard that he had taken another £42 million from councils in the north-east, not just next year but every year. He also introduced the strivers’ tax on people on low incomes, which will take £25 million from people in the north-east next year, £90 million the year after that and £180 million in the third year.
At the same time, of course, the Government are giving millionaires a tax cut. What does that do? It puts £40 million into the economy of the north-east and £640 million into the economies of London and the south-east. That is not simply unjust; it is foolish. The north-east is contributing all the time to the savings the Chancellor of the Exchequer demands, but it is not receiving its proper share of investment.
What is the justification for those disproportionate cuts when the north-east economy plainly has so much to offer? Could it be that the Chancellor thinks the political battleground for 2015 will be the marginal seats in the east and west midlands? The Government appear to be playing politics with public money.
I am calling for a one nation approach in which the assets of the north-east are valued and nurtured, in which there is a fair funding formula for public services based on need, and in which investment in infrastructure is based on economic potential not political calculation. I hope very much that the Deputy Leader of the House can pass those messages on to his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It merely remains for me to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a very happy Christmas.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I want to thank and salute many hundreds—possibly even thousands—of people in my constituency who make a huge contribution every year to the communities in which they live, often on a voluntary basis. I know that it is very fashionable nowadays to suggest that communities are constantly under pressure, disintegrating, transitory or being disaggregated in one form or another, but I am here to reassure the House that in Central Devon community is alive and whole.
It is invidious to single out individual organisations and individuals, of course, because for every one I mention there are many I will not have time to mention. None the less, some have been particularly special to me as a Member of Parliament over the past couple of years. I want to start with a gentleman called Brian Warren, who has run an organisation called Farm Crisis Network for the past decade or so. It provides pastoral support to our farming community, which, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, has been under considerable pressure over many years. The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 had its epicentre in Hatherleigh in my constituency, and many of us still remember to this day the pyres burning, the burning cattle and the pall of black smoke that filled the skies above Devon. It was a very difficult time. We are also aware of the difficulties associated with bovine TB and the challenges of milk prices, which are under pressure from supermarkets. Brian has done an extraordinary job with his colleagues on an entirely voluntary basis, providing compassion to many farmers in my constituency who have much needed it.
I want also to thank all those who are involved in the 125 town and parish councils that I have scattered across my 550 square miles of Devon. I can assure hon. Members that I do not manage to get round all of them on a regular basis—there are too many—but many people give up a great deal of their time, and that is much appreciated. I particularly thank the town clerks of my larger towns—Judith Hart in Buckfastleigh, John Germon in Ashburton, Terry Westwood in Bovey Tracey, John Carlton in Chudleigh, Martin Maggs in Crediton, and Don Bent in Okehampton. For all the people they serve, a big thank you.
I have had quite a lot of involvement with the Royal British Legion this year. It does an extraordinary job for many well deserving men and women and the families of those who fight on our behalf. We have heard much about Afghanistan this afternoon. The Royal British Legion is not just the custodian of remembrance. It also provides practical help to individuals and families, and I am particularly grateful to the Royal British Legion in Ashburton. I should like to thank Maurice Mann, David Lewis, Kath Pugh and Bob Shemeld for the support they have given to the legion locally.
I thank Sandra Coleman, who has looked after the museum, the Valiant Soldier, which was a pub that was closed in Buckfastleigh in 1965 and has been preserved exactly as it was the day that it closed, including the coins and the change in the till. In addition to looking after the museum, Sandra has started a project to preserve and archive the history of the town. I was privileged to have been present when she was awarded the freedom of the town of Buckfastleigh in July this year.
I salute Sue Eales, a lady who has fostered many children in and around Ashburton. She provides them with the love, happiness, respect and security that we would all like to see our children receive. She is a very special lady, one of those great unsung heroes, and I am very proud to be able to mention her in this debate. I mention also Deborah Sterling, who has fought hard for youth services in Ashburton, especially a new skateboard park, and her son, for his imagination in designing the park.
Peter Mallaband, who lives in New Park near Bovey Tracey, has assisted me a great deal in the work that I and many others in the House have done in respect of park home legislation and in trying to improve the rights of park home owners. Peter has always been immensely generous with his time, not just to me, but to other local residents in other local parks in my constituency, including those who live in Buckingham Orchard in Chudleigh Knighton, who have had a particularly difficult period over the past few years.
I thank Wendy Brown and Sue Goode, who run the Crediton food bank and whose services will be much appreciated and in many cases much needed this Christmas. I thank Chris Gibbs, who has done a huge amount to support his community of Tedburn St Mary, so much so that he was in the vanguard of that village being voted the best village in England and Wales some years ago on the strength of its community cohesion and the vibrancy of the community there. I was privileged to work with him in fending off a proposed permanent road closure that would have much inconvenienced the local villagers.
I would like to mention Sally Hordern, who lives in the village of Exbourne and has fought very hard to get a new community store there ever since the village store closed just over a decade ago. She fought through all the obstacles. I had the privilege earlier this year of opening that extraordinary store, which is partly underground. It has a beautiful design and is a great monument and tribute to her and all those who worked on the project.
I would like to pay tribute to the people of Kennford and Buckfastleigh, who endured some of the worst flooding the country has seen recently, and I was grateful that the Prime Minister was able to come down to Buckfastleigh to meet some of the residents. One of the things that struck me was that, although it was an absolute tragedy, particularly for those affected, it was also an opportunity for the community to come together, and they did so magnificently.
I would like to salute Mary Stephenson, a constituent who has done a great deal regarding prisoner rehabilitation and looking after families whose loved ones have gone to prison. I spent some time with her at Channings Wood prison earlier this year and was much moved and impressed by her project and by her work and dedication and that of her colleagues.
I would like to thank Paul Dobbie, who runs the Room 13 youth facility in Okehampton, a vibrant and positive place, and Chris Marson, who lives in the small village of Northlew in the west of my constituency. He has managed to improve the broadband connection significantly by employing ingenious new technologies, which has helped the village a great deal, and he has also furthered the new community store there.
It remains for me finally to thank the staff in my office, Chris Yeo and, in particular, Dominic King and Mike Knuckey, for supporting me and all my demanding ways. I also wish to thank my family—
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I think that the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has reduced the number of Christmas cards he needs to send this year—the rest of us have taken note for next year. I congratulate him on his remarks.
Many hon. Members have seen fit to talk about our armed services this Christmas and to help us reflect on those serving abroad. It is right then, as I begin my contribution, to recognise that Christmas is a time when families come together and people often drink quite a lot. In those circumstances, we should also reflect on the police service, because sadly there are accidents on our roads, scenes in our clubs and bars and, as is sometimes the case in family life, there are domestic disputes, which increase over the Christmas period. Our police will absolutely be on duty this year, as they always are.
Sadly, in the past two years London Metropolitan Police Service has lost 16% of its work force. Thanks to the coalition Government’s cuts of 20%, the Met faces a £148 million shortfall over the coming year, which is equivalent to 2,690 officers. Of great concern to Londoners at the moment—indeed, it is in this afternoon’s Evening Standard—is the fact that London looks set to lose many of its police stations, moving from 133 24-hour police stations across the capital to 71.
Hon. Members will recognise that some London boroughs are very large. The idea that in a London borough such as Lambeth, or Hackney, or Haringey, which stretches from Highgate and Muswell Hill right across to the corner of Tottenham, Edmonton and up to Finsbury Park, there could be only one 24-hour station is hugely alarming. I fear that the Mayor’s understanding of helping to reduce crime might be helping to reduce the ability of the public to report crime, which is what will happen if this set of closures goes ahead.
Helen Goodman
Is my right hon. Friend really telling us that there will be one police station per 100,000 people in the capital?
Mr Lammy
In fact, it will be worse than that, because the London borough of Haringey, which has a population of about 250,000, will have one 24-hour police station. My hon. Friend will understand the concern in my constituency, which was the epicentre of riots in August 2011, when my constituents watched their homes and shops burn in front of their very eyes. She will recognise that in the days following those riots, the big thing that people in London and, unfortunately, other cities were saying was “Where are the police?” It is deeply worrying to tell them that there will be a diminution of police stations on this scale, as well as fewer police officers.
Boris Johnson was in my constituency last week, and he said that the police station in Tottenham would not close. However, we want to drill into the detail, because on the basis of the figures that have been presented to us, with borough commanders touring their MPs’ offices with proposals, it looks as though in fact it will close. Even if it does not close, it is possible that no police will be in it, because there is a difference between those who run the police property services, and therefore the police stations, and those in charge of actually marshalling the police. It is outrageous that we could be in a situation in Tottenham where there are no police officers in our police station.
You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others will have seen in the newspapers the discussion about access points, points of contact and pop-up shops. Yes, of course we want to make our police station accessible, but constituents who come to me to talk about gang crime, and are worried about the young man they know is in a gang and want to report it quietly, do not want to negotiate with someone having a latte in a coffee shop or with someone in Sainsbury’s. We need to be very careful about access and contact. What people understand, all over the world, is a police station. People know what it is and they know that the police have a freehold on the building so that when they move into the area it will still be there in five years, 10 years and 15 years. They have seen these neighbourhood offices but know that so many of them have the shutters down because there is a short-term lease and it could be gone next year. That is not what they want from the police service.
The Mayor’s office has palmed off the task of stakeholder consultation to borough commanders, many of whom are finding themselves in deeply politicised budgetary decisions. The deputy Mayor, Stephen Greenhalgh, has deigned to visit every borough as part of a public consultation process in the new year, and we should be grateful for that, although I am deeply concerned that he might find himself embroiled in an inappropriate situation. I hope that he will spend more than just an hour in Tottenham discussing this very important consultation.
This is happening at a time when we see not only a threat to our police station but to our fire station—the second-busiest fire station in London—which is facing closure under proposed budgetary cuts. The fact that closing or, at least, halving the capacity of such a vital fire station is even being considered shows how uninformed, ill-judged and reckless is the way in which these efficiencies and cuts are being handled.
Business of the House
Helen Goodman Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that the EU regulation he cites came into force in December last year, so the flexibility to exempt vehicles and small trailers of up to 6 tonnes that existed under the previous EU directive is no longer permitted. That adds burdens to some businesses using small trailers, but my hon. Friend will also be aware that vehicle and trailer combinations of over 3.5 tonnes that carry their own goods can still make use of the small trailer exemption. I hope that is some small comfort.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The unemployment rate in the north-east is almost 10%, which is the highest rate in the entire country. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the state of the economy in the north-east?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady might like to talk to her colleagues about holding a debate on the economy in Opposition time. I have encouraged the shadow Leader of the House to consider that over the past two or three weeks, as good news on the economy has been emerging, which she has signally failed to recognise in her communications with her constituents. The hon. Lady, or her other colleagues representing north-east constituencies, might like to seek an opportunity to raise the topic of the economy on a regional basis in an Adjournment debate, when they could celebrate the fact that on Friday the Deputy Prime Minister announced £120 million, I think, of the regional growth fund round 3 moneys for the north-east, which is the largest sum of regional growth fund moneys.
Business of the House
Helen Goodman Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I presume that my hon. Friend is talking about the vehicle excise duty contract. That is a live procurement and, as such, it would be incredibly difficult to have any kind of a debate about it. I assure him and the House that last year Government business passing through post offices increased in value, which it had not done for a number of years previously. I reiterate that, as I said last week, the post office local model is giving post offices additional possibilities and business opportunities, and I hope that that will continue.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 523?
[That this House deplores the decision of HSBC to close its branch located in Shildon, County Durham; notes that in light of this decision the town of Shildon, home to over 10,000 residents, will be left without any banking facilities meaning residents will be forced to travel several miles to get to their nearest bank; further notes that this decision is especially deplorable in light of the fact that HSBC made a pre-tax profit of £13.7 billion last year and paid their Chief Executive just under £8 million; and finally calls for HSBC to review urgently its decision to close its branch in Shildon.]
The disgraceful proposal to close the HSBC bank branch in Shildon will leave 10,000 people without any banking facilities at all. Will the Leader of the House make time for us to have a debate on how the banks treat ordinary people?
Mr Lansley
I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady. I remember that in my own constituency, some 10-plus years ago, branches of HSBC, Barclays and Lloyds shut down in villages. As the years have gone on, much of that closure programme has made it increasingly difficult for people to obtain cash and to undertake some of their business. I know that this concerns the House, and I will raise it with my colleagues. It may come up again when banking reform proposals come before the House.