General Debate

Joe Benton Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The Backbench Business Committee encountered some difficulty in finding sufficient business today, when many Members have good reason to be in their constituencies. We are pleased to have been able to arrange some business, but the Government giving us Westminster Hall and the Chamber on the same day as part of our allocation caused us some difficulty. Discussions about the number of days the Committee allocated in the Session will no doubt refer back to today.

Parliamentarian of the day award goes to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who, I anticipate, will have contributed in both Chambers within an hour. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) in his place.

Two Members notified the Committee that they wish to participate in the debate, but others are free to speak. Today’s debate follows the traditional structure of pre-recess debates. The Committee has found that introducing this structure at times other than before recesses has proved popular among Members, as it offers flexibility within the parliamentary timetable to raise a range of subjects. We are happy to have arranged this debate, albeit on a slightly tricky day for business.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Two subjects have been notified to us, the first of which is the impact of BAA on the Heathrow villages.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity.

I fully support the innovation of the Backbench Business Committee and reform of Back-Bench debates. Having sat for eight hours through many pre-recess debates and been able to speak for only two minutes, I think this is a wonderful innovation. The fact that so few Members have applied to speak in the debate is no reflection on the structuring of these debates. There are no local government elections in my constituency, so this is perhaps a higher priority than other matters.

I represent Hayes and Harlington, which covers Heathrow airport. The airport is surrounded to the north by Cranford Cross, Harlington, Sipson, Harmondsworth and Longford—villages in the traditional Middlesex style. They still have their own identities and wonderful features to celebrate that we value greatly locally.

Cranford has a wonderful park, in which is situated the mediaeval St Dunstan’s church. We in Hayes regularly hear the peal of its bells. At an open day a couple of months ago I tried my hand at a peal of bells, and although it was not particularly successful it has gone down well as a comic act on YouTube.

In Harlington, we have St Peter and St Paul mediaeval church, with its ancient yew trees. Harlington was the home of William Byrd, the composer and musician to Elizabeth I.

Sipson is a vibrant village, despite the threat to it. It has a traditional pub, the King William, and a wonderful primary school. Sipson house was owned by Nelson’s funder and banker and is still a local monument.

Longford is a collection of attractive homes, many of which are located on an island surrounded by a stream. Despite the problems of noise and pollution, it remains an attractive place to live.

Harmondsworth is a traditional Middlesex village, with a green and pubs on it. The person who discovered the Cox’s orange pippin, Mr Cox, is buried in its mediaeval church, St Mary’s, which is a place of pilgrimage for gardeners. Harmondsworth tithe barn is the largest mediaeval barn in Europe.

All those villages are surrounded by park lands—Prospect park and Cranford park—and linked by open spaces. There is 1,000 years of history in the villages. Philip Sherwood, a friend who is a local historian, has written books on the history of the Heathrow villages, and Catherine Kelter has written on the wider history of Hayes. People can read various articles by Douglas Rust, another local historian, in our local history society journal. Those books and articles, especially Philip’s history of Heathrow and photo collection, show how the area has changed over time. That change has been dominated by the growth of London airport, now known as Heathrow.

Heathrow was developed in the 1930s. Initially, there was a row of tents in a field located strategically on the A4 near London and the aviation manufacturing and development at Fairey Aviation in Hayes.

In the second world war, Heathrow served as a key airport for London and it expanded. Heathrow village was demolished to develop the airport. The Government developed their plans for the expansion and growth of the airport throughout the war, but they were largely kept secret. It was to be the national airport with a network of runways and terminals. Interestingly, those plans bear close resemblance to those that BAA eventually proposed for a third runway and sixth terminal. From the mid-1940s to the 1990s, we saw a rolling out of almost the original plans: five terminals, two runways and an emergency runway.

Heathrow village was demolished and wiped off the face of the earth. Longford and Cranford Cross suffered increased noise and pollution, but we managed to contain it by liaising with the airport authority, minimising the environmental damage. We were able to protect the other villages by maintaining a divide between the airport and the villages: the A4, which forms the northern boundary of Heathrow airport.

The peripheral developments associated with the airport are beyond the A4—hotels and the headquarters of BA, the British Airways Pilots Association and the Unite union—but they were managed to a large extent by the planning process and therefore had minimal impact on the Heathrow villages. There were some incursions into Longford, as properties were bought by developers for more hotels, some of whom were encouraged by BA. Allegations were floated at the time that BA was secretly funding the developers so that it could take control of Longford.

Nevertheless, the Heathrow villages were maintained. They were jealously protected as thriving communities by vigilant residents represented by vigilant residents associations, working with councillors and me over the past 35 to 40 years. Village life continues, and we have excellent and successful schools such as William Byrd school in Harlington, Heathrow school in Sipson and Harmondsworth school in that village. The churches and the local temple have been an essential part of the local community, we still have small local shops, pubs and clubs, and there were British Legion clubs in Sipson and Cranford Cross.

Wonderful community organisations include Harlington hospice, of which I am a trustee. It provides an essential service supporting the local primary care trust. There are active community centres in Harmondsworth and Sipson, and the secret jewel of Harlington is the model steam railway, which children especially enjoy. We have local scouts, guides, cubs and brownies—everything we would associate with a typical English village, evolving over time.

When the threat of the third runway came on the scene, things changed. Let me outline the history. In the 1980s, BAA introduced proposals for terminal 4. That expansion was agreed to on the basis that the airport could have a new terminal, but there was to be no further expansion, and the new terminal was to be contained within the airport and south of the A4 boundary. In the 1980s and 1990s, despite Government assurances of no further development, BAA started to lobby for terminal 5, which I opposed and campaigned against because I thought it was overdevelopment. Terminal 5 was eventually agreed in the 1990s; none the less, when it was agreed, the inspectors’ report was extremely helpful, because it recommended rejection of any further expansion of Heathrow, particularly a third runway or a further terminal.

BAA lobbied extensively after that inquiry and within 18 months introduced proposals for a third runway between Harlington and Sipson. It was initially to be a short take-off runway, but we knew that it would eventually become a full runway. It would have demolished Harmondsworth and its mediaeval barn, obliterated Sipson, and even impinged on Harlington. At one time, the proposed network of roads would have gone through our local cemetery at Cherry lane and we were faced with the prospect of having to exhume our loved ones. A further revelation that came during that process was that, as we predicted, a third runway would require a sixth terminal, which would completely obliterate Sipson village. All the Heathrow villages would be dramatically affected by the airport’s expansion, and many would come within the airport’s boundaries.

As many hon. Members know, local residents launched a campaign against the proposal. We campaigned on a cross-party basis in the local area, but it became a national issue and we had support from a range of direct action campaigners. The climate camp arrived in my constituency, and I slept there for a few nights. I learned more about the use of superglue in direct action than I ever knew before—one campaigner, in a publicity stunt, superglued himself to the previous Prime Minister.

Friends of the Earth and 50,000 of their supporters bought a piece of land, and became beneficiary owners, so that they would be consulted on the expansion of Heathrow. The issue went from being a local one, sometimes described as nimbyism, to one of national shame that the project might go ahead with the threat of 10,000 people losing their homes, and 2 million being affected by noise and pollution. It then became a global issue as we discovered more and more about climate change.

As a result of debates about the expansion of Heathrow, we looked at alternatives, including high-speed rail which, it seemed, would provide more employment and environmental protection than the expansion of Heathrow. The threat of climate change changed the nature of the debate on aviation expansion: it moved on to reducing demand and controlling the environmental impact of airports instead of simply acquiescing to more and more expansion.

We won the campaign. It was a virulent and mass campaign—I will not go into the use of the Mace in the Chamber—and it was creative in developing a broad base of opposition. The Liberal Democrats supported us. The Conservative party turned a policy somersault from backing airport expansion to being opponents of the third runway, and I congratulate it on doing that. The Labour party was split: it supported Heathrow’s expansion and the third runway, but in the negotiations on a coalition, I believe, it offered up the third runway as an item that could be dropped.

When the coalition was formed, the third runway was rejected. I am convinced that the third runway and the sixth terminal are dead, but although we secured victory in our campaign, we must recognise that casualties continue. Residents and small businesses in the Heathrow villages have suffered blight from the threat of expansion—a threat that has existed for more than a decade. The culprit was and continues to be BAA.

BAA was established in 1966. It owned and was responsible for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and originally Prestwick airports. It was then a nationalised industry, but in 1987, the Thatcher Government privatised it, and as a private company, it was responsible for 85% of air traffic movements in the London area. In March 2006, BAA was taken over by the Spanish company, Grupo Ferrovial, which is a major international construction group.

At various times, Ferrovial has had to refinance the debt that it incurred when it purchased BAA, as well as Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The Civil Aviation Authority determines the charges that airport authorities and owners may levy, including BAA’s charges at Heathrow. When purchasing BAA and Heathrow, Ferrovial consistently overestimated its ability to charge and the profits that it could make from expanding Heathrow. As a result, it failed to fulfil the expectations of its shareholders.

Ferrovial thought that the purchase of Heathrow would be a way of making a fast profit in the short term that would justify investment in expansion to make even more profit in the long term, but the CAA’s control of the levy and its failure to increase charges to the level that Ferrovial demanded has made Ferrovial’s ownership of BAA financially embarrassing. Ferrovial has found managing the short-term and long-term profitability of the airport difficult. I think it wanted to repatriate some of the profit from Heathrow to prop up its position because of problems with its international construction group and to cope with volatility in the construction market. It has failed to do so. When it factored Heathrow expansion into its calculations, it did not reflect charging levels and the possible failure to achieve a third runway.

It is entirely understandable that Ferrovial factored in the expansion of Heathrow and a third runway because, until the last three years, BAA’s every demand for expansion and the aviation industry’s every policy demand has been acceded to by successive Governments of every political hue. There has been cross-party consensus on acquiescence to every demand from the aviation industry. Ferrovial was shocked that the CAA did not allow it to increase its charges so it could make the profits it wanted, and by the incoming Government’s refusal to allow Heathrow to expand. I understand that shock because, as I have demonstrated in debate after debate in the House, there has been an almost incestuous link between BAA, the aviation industry and the Department for Transport, with almost a revolving door for people coming to and from jobs in the Department and the aviation industry, and even from No. 10 into airline companies and BAA.

The third runway dominated BAA’s thinking about its long-term future. It was so confident of convincing the Government to allow expansion that it dominated the media, which took that expansion as read. As soon as the previous Government opened up the debate on the third runway, there was immediate blight. Home owners who wanted to move for the usual reasons—families growing up, people retiring and wanting to move nearer their children, and people securing jobs away from the area—were unable to sell, even at significantly knocked-down prices.

Small local businesses were unable to raise capital to invest or plan for the long term, and they were therefore unable to secure their long-term futures effectively. Community groups were affected by the blight because they were not able to raise funds—particularly capital funds—to secure investment in their premises, because of the risk that those premises would be demolished with the building of the third runway. The local authority, Hillingdon council, was not able to plan investment in local schools or housing because of the insecurity over whether or not the area would be affected by the airport expansion and schools would be demolished or rendered unusable.

As a result, we lobbied BAA and asked it to introduce some mechanism to provide security or compensation for those who were affected by the blight and wished to sell their properties and move, or invest in their companies. We met Ministers who put pressure on BAA, and that organisation linked up with the airlines that operated as part of the consortium around Heathrow. We asked BAA whether it would introduce a mechanism to allow families, residents and businesses to receive some form of assistance to overcome the blight, and we presented a number of heart-rending examples of those affected. One family, for example, lived in a one-bedroom flat. The number of people in that family had increased over the years, but they were totally unable to sell their accommodation and move somewhere larger. There were people who were elderly or ill and wanted to move to live near their families who had moved away. They were unable to do so because they could not sell their properties. There were retirees who wanted to move to be near their sons and daughters.

After a lot of pressure, and assistance from representatives of all political parties who mobilised to put pressure on BAA, BAA came up with a proposal for a bond scheme. Under that scheme, BAA agreed to purchase individual properties from residents at a guaranteed price if planning permission was given. The scheme was extremely limited to certain identified areas that included Sipson village and some streets in Harmondsworth, although not many. Some concerns about prices and valuations needed to be hammered out, and the bond scheme did not include compensation to organisations other than individual property owners. There was no compensation for community organisations or for the wider consequences of the blight, particularly in Harmondsworth and Harlington.

The scheme also failed to address the needs of small businesses in the area. I will provide examples in a moment, but in such businesses, the family often live on site above the shop. In the post office, the local hairdressers, the pub and the local garden centre, people were faced with the loss of their home and their business without compensation. That was largely the result of complications that excluded leaseholders in those circumstances. There was certainly no redress for the wider implications of blight on the local authority or other community organisations.

A number of residents submitted an expression of interest in the bond scheme for consideration. After the general election, the coalition Government rejected the third runway and announced publicly that it would not go ahead—I supported them wholeheartedly in that and congratulate them on having done it. To give it its due, BAA adhered to its commitment to implementing the bond scheme for the many families who were suffering blight and wanted to move for a range of reasons, such as having outgrown their properties, wanting to move closer to other family members, or because of the insecurity and the potential threat that plans for the third runway might return.

So far, BAA has identified 723 properties within the bond scheme, but only 300 of those are homes for families and eligible for that scheme. Of those, latest figures show that 268 properties have been purchased, and another eight sales are in progress. BAA is now the largest home owner in Sipson village, and it is a significant home owner in other Heathrow villages. Many of the homes that have been purchased have been left empty. We are told that those homes are being refurbished with a view to being let, but the process is extremely slow.

Although I have met representatives from BAA and, along with local residents and the local residents association, applied as much pressure as possible, the assurances we have received that the properties will be let quickly to families have not been fulfilled. The slowness of estate agents in allowing lets to take place has been extremely influential in undermining village life, and allowing properties to stand empty has had appalling consequences. In addition, many of the properties have been let not to families but to transient airport workers who have, frankly, no role in village life. They are in the village for short periods of time, do not spend much in the local shops and some do not pass the whole week there. Many of those incomers make no contribution to the local village or to village life because they are there only for short periods of time.

We urged BAA to look at the potential of housing local authority nominated families in those properties, so that the local council can tackle its waiting list that currently stands at over 7,000 families. We also suggested that the council could manage some of the properties more effectively. That has not occurred although I believe that some discussions have taken place at Hillingdon council. Local businesses were not included in the blight compensation scheme. They have lost their loyal customer base and some of them have been devastated. They are struggling to survive from week to week, and it is difficult to see how they can continue.

The current situation is dreadful. I will give some examples because I feel that BAA and the Government need to know the personal circumstances of some of the people in the village as a consequence of decisions made by BAA and in this place. Jackie Clark runs the local hairdresser in Sipson together with her partner, Danny, and she is the third or fourth generation of Clarks to live in the village. I knew her father, Jack Clark, who died aged 97 a short while ago. He was famous because he used to plough the fields in the village and take produce to Covent Garden. Jackie runs the local hairdressers and she was an important figure in our campaign to save the village. It now looks, however, as though she will lose her business and her home because she lives above the salon. Her takings are down by 70%; her husband, who works alongside her, has had to look for alternative work but has found only part-time positions so far. Her business is on the edge of survival.

Shaun Walters runs the local pub. The brewery has done everything it can to assist him and Shaun is not paying himself at the moment—he cannot. He has tried many methods to encourage the use of the pub; he has developed it as a restaurant and added other facilities, but his takings are down by 50% and he is looking at the prospect of not being able to survive unless assistance is provided.

The butcher’s shop in Sipson is run by Gerald Storr. Again, he is not sure how long he can survive because his takings are down so considerably. The village general store and post office, the heart of the village, is run by Mr and Mrs Daurka. They have told me that their customer base has gone and that the number of regular customers is down by at least a quarter, perhaps more. They have looked at whether they can sell their business but they cannot because it is no longer as profitable as it was, or indeed at all. Sipson has a garden centre run by Ian and Pam Stevenson. They once employed 30 staff, but that number is now down to six. Their takings are down by between 60% and 80%, and they are looking at enforced closure if business does not pick up.

The problem is that the homes BAA has bought in Sipson are not being sold. They are being sat upon by that authority, and when they are let, they are not let to settled tenants or families. If the homes are not sold or let to settled families, it is incredibly difficult for the businesses to rebuild the loyal customer base that they once had. Then village life declines. Indeed, if we lose the core village businesses—the shops, the post office, the hairdresser’s and the pub—the village dies, and at the moment we are witnessing the village dying before our eyes.

There are knock-on consequences for the other villages of Harmondsworth, Harlington, Longford and Cranford Cross. They largely were not included in any compensation scheme and they live in the continuing fear of a third runway coming back. That is fuelled by public statements made by BAA that it is still seeking Heathrow expansion and is still confident that it can convince the present Government or future Governments that a third runway should be allowed at some stage. The villagers are receiving no compensation for the suffering that the blight is causing them. Many residents, a lot of whom are elderly, have endured real worries and stress and they are still affected by blight. They are trapped in their homes because the value of their properties has fallen so dramatically, but they are not included in any bond guarantee schemes.

Community organisations, too, have been undermined by the falling population in Sipson village and elsewhere. St Mary’s church in Harmondsworth was cited in the local paper and in a national paper, The Independent, as unable to pay its church stipend this year because of the falling number of parishioners.

A pall is still hanging over the Heathrow villages and that has been caused by BAA. I have had meetings with representatives of BAA consistently. The relationship is relatively amicable. I want a good working relationship with it. I am not opposed to the airport; none of us is. We support the airport: it is an employer and an engine of the local economy. All we oppose is any further expansion of Heathrow. We just want BAA to be a good neighbour. As I said, I have met BAA representatives, and we have considered various schemes to assist the villages and the village businesses. We looked at a “Shop Local” campaign, which I launched. There is consideration of a discount purchase scheme in local shops that can be promoted at the airport among its employees. But with the best will in the world, such schemes are insufficient—they are not what is needed. What is needed is a number of actions by BAA and by Government.

The first relates to blight compensation. I would like BAA at least to accept responsibility for the blight that it has caused. Just a statement of acceptance of that responsibility would go a long way towards restoring some of the relationships between the villages and BAA. However, BAA also needs to bring forward now consideration of a new compensation scheme that provides compensation for the blight that has been caused in the past and for the ongoing blight. That is a wide issue. Immediate action is needed to agree a scheme of compensation for the Sipson small businesses that comprises both lump sum compensation for past blight and ongoing compensation to ensure that they are sustainable while they rebuild their customer base in the village. We are talking about half a dozen small businesses. It is a limited number, so it would be an extremely limited cost.

Secondly, there needs to be consultation of community organisations about the community view of the blight and the ongoing implications. A community investment programme needs to be agreed to regenerate the Heathrow villages. When terminal 5 was agreed, a compensation scheme was set up and it was to be administered by the Hillingdon Community Trust. Under that scheme, BAA gave the trust £1 million a year for 15 years to spend on local community organisations in the south of Hillingdon to tackle community regeneration and environmental improvements. A similar scheme could now be established for the Heathrow villages to compensate them for the blight. I am talking about a scheme controlled by the villagers themselves specifically to regenerate the Heathrow villages and to overcome the ongoing blight that they are suffering.

I would also like BAA to consider a compensation scheme for special cases of blight impact. Where individuals or voluntary and community organisations, such as individual Harmondsworth residents, individual schools or St Mary’s church, could identify specific impacts of blight caused by BAA’s expansion policy, BAA could consider how it could provide compensation and work with those people and organisations to overcome the problems.

Above all, I would like BAA to start selling the empty properties to families. BAA now owns numerous properties in Sipson. It does not need to sell them all at once, but if it now started a process, to take place over a limited period, of putting those properties on the market at a reasonable price so that families could buy them, we could re-establish a stable, thriving community. To get a social mix in the village, it would possibly be worthwhile for some of the properties to be given to Hillingdon council to let to local families. The council would manage the properties itself.

I would also like BAA to look again at using its purchasing power. We have worked with BAA to develop a local supply chain to the airport, which has encouraged businesses across the west of London to take up contracts that have supported the airport and, as a result, supported those businesses. I would now like BAA to consider developing a local supply chain whereby the local village shops and the garden centres elsewhere could become key suppliers to the airport and therefore be sustained.

Above all, I would now like BAA not just to admit the blight, but to give a public and firm commitment to my community that there will be security in the future because it no longer wishes to expand Heathrow airport. I would like BAA to make a public statement that it accepts that the present Government and future Governments will not allow the expansion of Heathrow and that it is giving up its expansion ambitions—that there will be no third runway and no sixth or seventh terminal. I fear at the moment that BAA is retaining the properties—some allege that it is continuing to purchase properties around the Heathrow villages—because it is convinced that it can change the policy of the existing or a future Government by its lobbying and that the third runway will be back in prospect.

We know that BAA is developing a lobbying strategy, particularly targeting coalition partners and Conservative Back Benchers—I will be frank about that. It will be lobbying at the national party conferences. The wining and dining will start again. It will also try to lobby within the Labour party, using the unions as a wedge to try to promote the expansion of Heathrow as developing employment in the area. I believe that that strategy will be well funded and that BAA will seek, during the next 18 months to two years, to get to a situation in which, in the run-up to the next general election, the issue of the third runway and Heathrow expansion will be reopened.

I am convinced that the present Government are committed to no further Heathrow expansion and I am now of the view that the Labour party will come alongside it and support that policy. The problem is that even if we could convince BAA to come out with a promise not to expand and it was written in the blood of the chief executive, not many people would believe it. Therefore, we have to search for a better and more secure route to a commitment that will give people in my area more assurance and lift the blight that they still face. The Government and all the political parties have a role to play in that.

I would like to see, across political parties, the development of a common statement that we all sign up to and that says that no matter who is elected, they do not and will not support the expansion of Heathrow. Let me be frank: I do not see that as an issue for the Liberal Democrats, because it is a long-standing Liberal Democrat party policy. With regard to the Conservatives, the present Government made a commitment and it has proved popular. It would therefore be unpopular to resile from it, but as I said, lobbying is going on, particularly of Back Benchers, by BAA. The policy review taking place on transport is the way in which the Labour party can get itself off the hook of its previous commitments to Heathrow expansion. I hope that the Labour party will rise to that challenge.

I am not sure, however, that even a commitment from the political parties that there will be no further expansion at Heathrow would convince people and lift the blight. We therefore need a more secure commitment, and I look to the example of Gatwick. As Members will recall, one reason it was proposed to expand Heathrow rather than Gatwick was the existence of a legally binding, covenanted agreement that there would be no further expansion at Gatwick until 2020, and that agreement has held.

I would like the Government to bring together all the partners, including all the representatives of the political parties, the Greater London authority and the Mayor—mayoral candidates across the parties have opposed Heathrow’s expansion—the area’s local authorities, particularly Hounslow and Hillingdon, BAA and the airlines, to see whether we can hammer out a draft legal agreement that prevents further expansion at Heathrow. We can seek political consensus, but we can give people authoritative reassurance if we produce a binding legal agreement, which might well be secured by some form of legislation. In that way, we can give people security. A Heathrow concordat or contract would also give my constituents the assurance that their community and village life will not come under threat again.

That is not too much to ask. My community has suffered this blight for decades. I just want my constituents to be able to live in peace in their community and in an environment of their choice. I want them to be able to bring up their families and enjoy their lives in a way they have not been able to because of the lack of security and the blight caused by BAA over the past three decades.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

I now call Mr Gordon Henderson to raise the subject of roads infrastructure in Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

Parliamentary Reform

Joe Benton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

A lot of people have requested to speak and we want to allow as many as possible to do so. I appeal to hon. Members to be as brief as they can, and we will do our best to get everybody in.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and I thank you for your guidance on how matters should proceed. No doubt that was appreciated by all hon. Members in keeping within the spirit of the debate. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing the opportunity for an initial debate on parliamentary modernisation and reform. I look forward to hearing about the experiences of other new Members, and to learning from those who have been MPs for longer.

This debate is part of a call for more open and efficient politics. If we do not continue visibly to modernise the way in which we work, I worry that the public will—rightly—fail to be convinced that politics has changed for the better. It is more vital than ever for Parliament to ensure that its work is efficient, transparent and accountable. Following my first six months in this place, those are not the first three words that come to mind as I consider the way we conduct ourselves.

Our political process is still struggling to regain its legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the public. Following the expenses scandal, 232 new MPs entered Parliament in 2010. It is now time to shake off the image—and in some cases the reality—of the “old boys club” and move Westminster into the 21st century. I pay tribute to the extensive work that has already been done. In particular, the work of the Wright Committee led to important changes in the management of the business of the House, not least with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, which has allowed this debate to take place.

There is still a long way to go. Following the expenses scandal, public suspicion about the behaviour of MPs has not gone away, and many people seriously ask what exactly it is that MPs do. How does Parliament work on a day-to-day basis? How can we better scrutinise legislation and serve our constituents with maximum efficacy and efficiency? In years gone by, MPs were accused of being too Westminster focused and of not working enough in their constituencies. Now some suggest that the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and that some MPs spend too much time in their constituencies, and not enough time properly scrutinising the legislation for which they are responsible. Now is a good time to take stock of that, and discuss what the balance should be between time spent on constituency casework and scrutiny of legislation.

Our constituents want us to have the time to know what we are voting on and to hold the Government to account, but they also want us to deal with constituency work and to know about their concerns. How much time a week should MPs spend in understanding what they are voting on in Parliament, and how much time should they spend in their constituency? We will all hold different views on that. It strikes me that it might be interesting to see an official job description for the role of MP. That is not something I have ever seen, but if it existed it would be interesting, and people would probably have different views about the different clauses in it.

We all have our own views about the way that the procedures in this place could be improved, and I look forward to hearing from others during the debate. I have published some of my own ideas in a report entitled, “The case for parliamentary reform”, which I circulated to colleagues last November. Today, I make the same suggestion as in the report: the procedures and processes of the House of Commons are in urgent need of reform. That is hardly a new or novel observation. However, in a time of austerity when the rest of the country is urged to be more efficient with scarce resources, perhaps we should look at our own practices and at how efficient we are being with taxpayers’ resources in using our time in Parliament.

Some of the reforms in my report build on previous proposals by the Wright Committee and the now disbanded Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. A few of the new proposals draw on experiences from other legislatures, while others were—I admit—rejected by previous Parliaments at a different time. However, that is no reason why a new Parliament in new circumstances should not examine those proposals again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I apologise to the hon. Lady because I will not be here for the whole debate. As well as an interest in this issue, I have a long-standing commitment to and interest in affordable credit, which is being debated elsewhere. I have something of a reputation in the north for being macho, but on this occasion I agree almost wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady and want to encourage her, not necessarily to pin down specific hours, but to look to provide certainty and to avoid what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) described—by-elections every three months, which is what happened 24 years ago, when I came into the House.

If I may, I will encourage the hon. Lady not to get bogged down on hours, because other changes in this place could get us into at least the 20th, if not the 21st century, and allow us, with discretion, to vote more sensibly, provide certainty and, above all, demonstrate that we have understood the changes that have happened because of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and our relationship with the European Parliament, all of which have taken shape since I came—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions must be kept as terse as possible. An awful lot of Members want to speak this afternoon, and I want to be as fair as I can.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) for his intervention, which was incredibly valuable. He rightly reminds me that the Procedure Committee is examining sitting hours. I am very glad about that. I hope that this debate can produce some agreement that at least there should be a mechanism whereby we can consider all these issues again. We may disagree about the details of family-friendly hours or exactly when different debates should happen, but I want to gauge how much interest there is for some types of change and, if there is some interest, how we can make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady continues, may I point out that she is about 18 minutes into her speech, but that so far there have been at least 10 interventions. It is entirely a matter for the Chamber, but I suggest that to enable the hon. Lady to make her points we minimise interventions.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is probably out of order for me to reflect upon that, Mr Benton, but I would argue that one way to improve our debates would be to have more interventions and fewer set pieces. I hope that I am not being disrespectful.

I want to make one last point about electronic voting. If we make the process of casting votes less time-consuming, MPs could vote on more aspects of Bills. As a result, the public would have a clearer record on which to hold us to account. A system that inherently discourages voting on the specifics of Bills because it takes too long to vote is a problem. It also requires less thought from those charged with passing legislation through the House. Speeding up voting would enable us to be better legislators by giving better scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I was just coming to that point. The hon. Lady is correct. The whole point about the petitions procedure in the Scottish Parliament is that by raising a petition, the public can instigate action in the Parliament. The petition is not just something that is filed away as of interest to somebody; the Committee considers how it should proceed. It may hold a hearing at which the petitioners can put their points in person, or through representatives, and it may call, and has often called, Ministers to give evidence on the issue. The Committee does not have the power to impose a solution, but as the hon. Lady said, it can recommend to other Committees and to the Government that action be taken.

Constituents and members of the public who have a valid point have an engagement with the Parliament to get their point across directly. They can be assisted by their MSPs, but their MSPs cannot deliver the petition; it has to done by members of the public. It is a way of making sure that there is engagement with the citizen. That could also be a way for this Parliament to have that engagement. That need not be an exact example; this Parliament deals with a much larger population, and there is a much larger number of MPs and constituencies, but it is not beyond our wit to look at ways to have that engagement with the public. Everything does not need to be channelled through a Member of Parliament. The public will respect this Parliament much more if they can have direct access, and there are ways to do that.

A point was raised about explaining the meaning of an amendment. It is already possible to do that in a Committee, so MPs need to look at their own actions sometimes, but I ask Members who have sat on Public Bill Committees, how often is it actually done? It is rare now, in my experience. It was introduced in the previous Parliament as a trial, at the same time as laptops, if I remember correctly. MPs do not seem to be using the procedure, so we have to look at that. If we are serious about modernisation, and if these issues are raised, let us use them and show that we are interested in pushing forward with modernisation; otherwise, debates such as this are utterly pointless.

Parliament has, in recent years, through the expenses scandal and other things, lost a lot of its reputation. It may seem strange for me to make such points, as someone who wishes to get out of this Parliament, but while we are here it is important that we engage with the public and find ways to enable them to see us as relevant to their lives. If we fail to do that, it will increase the democratic deficit and will prove a grave danger to our future.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that the proceedings will now finish at 5.45 pm? I propose to start the wind-ups at 5.5 pm and there are still a lot of Members indicating that they wish to speak so I again appeal for brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call one more speaker, but there are only a couple of minutes left before the start of the winding-up speeches. I call Joseph Johnson.