Business of the House
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Could the Leader of the House ask one of her ministerial friends to come to the House before recess to give us a report on the civil service pay negotiations? A recent independent report by Queen Mary University found that civil service pay had fallen by 1.5% every year since 2011. As the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office admitted before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Government are now becoming a minimum wage employer. That has resulted in the Public and Commercial Services Union balloting after Easter for industrial action. The union is simply asking for a pay award to match inflation and some restoration on lost pay. If we could have a ministerial statement we might be able to avert this decline in industrial relations within the civil service.
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure that the Cabinet Office has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although I do not think it was correct. In Departments that I have been in, where we have encountered low pay, or pay that is not above the national living wage, we have increased it—most notably, in my case, ensuring that no member of our armed forces or civilian who works in defence is earning less than that.
Points of Order
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House rises tomorrow for 10 days, I believe. Regrettably and sadly, it may be likely that a ground invasion of Gaza will commence during that period. This not only has consequences for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but could create turmoil and destabilise the whole middle east. I appreciate that it is the Government who determine whether or not Parliament is recalled but, in your conversations with the Government, will you advise them that the House should be recalled to debate such a serious issue?
Mr Speaker
You are absolutely right that it would not be for me under the normal rules, although I recognise the importance of a major escalation and what could happen in the middle east. You are correct that it would be for the Government—not for me, unfortunately—to recall the House. I will work through the usual channels to try to ensure that, quite rightly, we look to see what can be done in what would be special circumstances, because obviously the House will have prorogued. I do not lose sight of what you have said, and I take it on board. I will work with others behind the scenes to see how we would manage such a situation.
Business of the House
John McDonnell Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that unfortunate case. The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have advertised it many times—including, I think, to him—that the Home Office is offering surgeries and bespoke services to all Members, either face-to-face or remotely. He will know that Home Office questions are on Monday, and I encourage him to raise this matter with the Home Secretary and her Ministers.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I preface my remarks by saying that I completely appreciate how busy Ministers are and the workload they carry, which is why I have never before raised such a concern in Parliament.
On Sunday, there was a demonstration by detainees at Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency. I emailed the relevant Minister on the various email accounts that are available to us, and I simply wanted to know what was happening. I was concerned about the welfare of the detainees and staff, many of whom are my constituents, and I received no response on Sunday. I thought that, in the normal run of things, we would have had either an oral or written statement on Monday, as we have had in the past. Nothing happened, so we contacted the Minister’s office again. Nothing happened on Tuesday, so we contacted the office again, and no response.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I also sought to raise the matter in the House on Tuesday, but other business understandably took precedence. I contacted the Minister’s office on Wednesday and basically said that, if I had not heard anything by noon, I would be raising a point of order. Twenty minutes before noon, I received a reply, which was inaccurate.
I understand how busy people are, but this is just unacceptable behaviour when I have constituents and others contacting me about this incident. There are continuing problems, so I ask the Leader of the House, first, to raise this with the Ministers concerned and say that this behaviour is not acceptable. Secondly, I would welcome a debate in the House on what is happening at Harmondsworth, because there are continuing concerns about the welfare of both detainees and staff, and this has continued year after year without resolution.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s experience. When there are particular incidents and situations, it is important that Members are able to get hold of the relevant people quickly, whether that be officials or Ministers. If he could take the trouble to send me an email with the details of what happened, I would be very happy to raise it with the Department.
Business of the House
John McDonnell Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this and the work she has done on the issue: she has been raising this matter on behalf of her constituent and I am sorry about the situation they are in. My right hon. Friend will know that the next Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions is on 9 January and I suggest she start by raising that issue there. As that is some time away, I will write to the Department on her and her constituent’s behalf and ask that the matter be addressed urgently.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Can we find time for a debate on what is happening at the Shelter charity? Many Members and constituents will be unaware that the Shelter management has imposed a pay cut on its workforce, which has produced industrial action. A debate may help put pressure on the trustees to recognise that they have significant reserves and could pay their staff an inflation-proofing wage increase. The staff are incredibly dedicated but ironically some of them are now struggling to secure a roof over their heads as a result of successive pay cuts in recent years.
Penny Mordaunt
That sounds like a topic for a Backbench Business Committee debate and the right hon. Gentleman will know how to apply for that. Charities are of course focused on putting as much money as they can into the services they provide, but what has happened at Shelter is very concerning, particularly at this time of year when we need all its staff to be doing what they want to do, which is help those who are most vulnerable.
Committee on Standards
John McDonnell Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
It is a very simple one, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay the House. Some people have asked whether the Standards Committee continues to exist. It does, and we will be meeting on Tuesday morning. I will still be its Chair.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that any hon. Member is truly honourable if they serve on this new Committee. Therefore I want my constituents to know that no Member of Parliament serves on this corrupt Committee in my name.
Mr Speaker
As I have said, we are not going to go through all the Members in the debate.
Business of the House
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend gives me an example that I missed out when I talked about the chaos in the Labour party. It is chaotic in opposition, chaotic in government, letting down Wales and failing to deliver the services and environment that Wales needs. It would be great to see Wales have a Conservative Government, not the current Labour Administration who have let it down year after year.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Today the Home Secretary has published the terms of reference of the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing. To be frank, I expected an oral statement, not a written statement, given its significance. The purpose is to investigate to what
“extent and effect undercover police operations have targeted political and social justice campaigners.”
Some months ago, we revealed in the House the extent of undercover police surveillance of trade unionists, but there is no explicit mention of trade unionists in the terms of reference, which we expected there to be. Will the Leader of the House seek clarification from the Home Secretary that trade unionists who have been under surveillance will be included in the inquiry’s terms of reference?
Chris Grayling
It will be up to the Home Secretary to give a detailed response to that question, and I will make sure she is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Deregulation Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Raynsford
I, too, intend to speak about the provisions on short-term lettings. I very much endorse the views that were ably expressed by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). There is cross-party agreement and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with a measure which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) rightly identified, does not address a problem because there is no problem. It will simply create a series of difficulties and aggravate problems that are obvious to many of us who have looked at the subject and which are increasing exponentially because of the changing character of the lettings market in London.
Before I proceed, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have been well rehearsed already. This is not just a problem for central London. In my constituency, Greenwich and Woolwich, there is a lot of evidence of problems of exactly this nature. We have some major tourist attractions, such as the O2, which attract people for individual events, and the availability of very short lettings—one or two nights—is an obvious attractive additional factor for people thinking of coming to such an event. There are significant numbers of short-term lettings which have the effect, as my hon. Friends have highlighted, first, of eroding permanent lettings because properties are converted from permanent lettings to short-term lettings, and secondly, in certain circumstances, attracting antisocial behaviour and behaviour which is very damaging to existing residents of the blocks being used, where properties are being converted for such short-term lettings.
There was a murder recently in a property in Erebus drive in West Thamesmead, not in the central area of Greenwich, which is perhaps more attractive to tourism, but an area to the eastern edge of my constituency. The matter is under investigation so I shall be cautious in what I say, but the evidence that I have seen is that it involved a very short letting—for only two nights, I think—and a party which attracted people from a wide area, including the west midlands. In the course of an altercation that evidently developed at the party, one individual lost their life.
Such a situation is hugely damaging to the community’s confidence in its homes if it finds that properties can be subject to such short-term letting with very little check on who has taken out the letting. These are short-term agreements and they are not subject to the kinds of checks that reputable landlords would carry out before deciding whether to let premises to an individual. That in itself is bad enough, but where individual lettings take place for a short period and properties are advertised, people come from far afield, resulting in huge antisocial behaviour with noise late at night, causing nuisance to residents. These are the consequences of what the Government seek to do. They are already a problem, but at least local authorities have powers at the moment to act. If the Government proceed with their proposals, those powers will be seriously restricted. It will not be possible to take action unless it can be established that the property has been used for this purpose for more than 90 nights. That in itself will be a difficult task to establish, as the City of Westminster made clear in its evidence to us.
This is a measure that has the seeds of all sorts of problems and difficulties, and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with it against the overwhelming views of the informed public in London. This is not a partisan case. Political parties across the board have agreed that proper regulatory arrangements need to be in place to allow the control of such lettings and to prevent the kinds of abuses that I have highlighted. There is also widespread support from residents groups in many areas of London, including my own. Against all that evidence and with an extraordinary lack of evidence to support what the Government are doing, I hope that common sense will prevail and that they will agree to pull back and accept the amendments, at least to allow greater control and safeguards, and to avoid some of the consequences that we fear will happen as a result of this ill-conceived measure.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not want to repeat what others have said but rather to address a specific local issue for me concerning the area around Heathrow airport. I have had representations from all the major hotels along the Bath road around Heathrow and from the local community, and I have seen representations from London Councils. I will describe the area as it now is, because I am worried that this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of retaining any form of community around the Heathrow villages. With the threat of the third runway, Sipson is already three-quarters bought by Heathrow Airport Ltd and rented out on licences of, I believe, no more than two years, which is destabilising for the community anyway. There is a massive expansion of buy-to-lets. All of us can identify buy-to-lets in our constituencies by their unkempt gardens, the lack of repair, and the occasional mattress dumped outside. With this legislation there will be further destabilisation of the community and further short-term lettings.
Who asked for this change in legislation? What was the enormous demand? Who was banging at the doors of the ministerial office to change the system, which may not be working brilliantly but which at least gives local authorities in their local areas some local tools that they can use against the adverse effects of short-term letting that we have had described today? I cannot see the benefits to any but a small commercial niche that seeks to profit at the expense of the wider community. I am fearful of the impact on legitimate traders as it is. I am worried about the impact on the hotels along the Bath road, which are a source of employment to my local community. But in addition to that, the average hotel in my area employs between 200 and 250 staff. Many of those staff live within the local community in private rented properties. I am worried that this will affect the private rented market in my area and have a knock-on effect on staff who are not the highest paid and sometimes fairly low paid.
Tom Brake
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to most, if not all of the points raised in this informed and passionate debate about some of the matters in the Bill.
In response to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), the Government do not believe that health and safety measures are bad. Clearly, when they are appropriate, the Government support them. We are pleased, and welcome the fact, that the Health and Safety Executive has recently, very vocally, pointed out to some organisations how badly they are interpreting health and safety rules in using them as an excuse not to allow things to happen.
The hon. Gentleman spent some time on the issue of private hire and subcontracting. If he feels that it is safer for a person who approaches a private hire operator who says, “Sorry, I can’t help you”, because they cannot subcontract it, then to go off and look online for an alternative provider, he is entitled to that view. I think that safety is actually enhanced by a contractor in an area having a relationship with another subcontractor who can work in another area. The hon. Gentleman called for precisely that—a relationship between the different providers—and that is probably a better guarantee of safety than someone simply looking online for people to do a job in the area. All such firms must be licensed, which also provides a safeguard for those seeking to travel in that way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his party’s policy of introducing rent caps or rent controls. [Interruption.] He did, I believe. We can look at Hansard, but I think he used the term “rent caps”. The evidence is very clear that such caps lead to a reduction in the number of private rented properties, which I am sure is not what he is seeking.
Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman thought that local authorities should be able to decide whether certain areas should be exempted. In the Government’s view, that would introduce inconsistencies in that different rules would apply in different parts of London; our proposals will provide consistency and be easier for people to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about how insurance for whole blocks may become invalid. If he has such examples, I would certainly like to see them. Our view is that the reforms only affect the requirement for planning permission; they do not have any impact on insurance polices and tenancy agreements. If he can supply me with any examples, I will be happy to look at them.
My hon. Friend referred to Home Office concerns about the change from people staying in hotels to their staying in short-term lets, making it harder for the security services to monitor their activities, but that is clearly happening already. It will not happen as a result of our changes; it is already happening on quite a large scale in London, as other hon. Members have said. If the security services have identified such an issue, they will have called on the Home Office to take action. I am sure that the Home Office would respond positively to any such requests, but I am not aware of any.
Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend asked whether local authorities could choose to exempt particular areas in relation to private lettings. As I have said, that is not our view. We want to provide local authorities with the ability to approach the Secretary of State if the amenity of a particular locality is affected, and we expect them to do so.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister elaborate on that point? Once the legislation has gone through, will local authorities be able to submit a bid to designate an area, or do they have to wait for problems to arise before making a submission?
Tom Brake
The honest answer is that we do not yet have such details, but they will be set out in regulations. I assume that a local authority would have to provide examples, such as a consistent pattern of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour in an area, in a letter or submission for the Secretary of State to consider. The exemption will apply to a locality; Westminster could not apply for an exemption for the whole of the area covered by the council.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) spoke about the proposal to make people report it to the local authority every time they let property on a short-term basis. I want to understand better the purpose behind that and how it would work in practice. What enforcement would there be if people did not report it? An individual who was going to rent out their property for a week would be very unlikely to do so. How would she ensure that it was done? What action would be taken against people who did not comply, given that short-term lets are already happening on a large scale in London and people are not taking notice of the existing law?
Christmas Adjournment
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to raise the case of Shaker Aamer and make a plea for Government action to secure his release from Guantanamo Bay. Shaker is the last British resident of Guantanamo.
The story of Shaker is simple. He was born in December 1968 in Medina in Saudi Arabia. He left home aged 17, lived in America for a year and travelled to many countries before making his home in the United Kingdom. In 1996, he was granted the legal right to remain in the UK and worked as a translator for a firm of solicitors. His application for British citizenship was in progress when Shaker, his wife and young family decided to travel to Afghanistan to work on charitable projects. Notably, he was supporting a girls school and digging wells. He arrived in June 2001 to join his friend Moazzam Begg and to share a house in Kabul.
After 9/11, in October 2001, the US and the UK started bombing Afghanistan and Shaker sent his family on to safety. As he tried to follow them, he was betrayed by Afghani villagers to the Northern Alliance. He was tortured and then sold for a bounty of $5,000 to the US. He was taken to the “dark” prison in Kabul, where he suffered appalling torture and was transferred to Bagram and Kandahar for further abuse. Shaker states that he was subjected to cruel torture and coercive interrogation, and MI5 and MI6 agents were present. In February 2002 he was among the first detainees to be transported to Guantanamo, in the orange suits, the chains, the ear muffs, the shackles and the blindfolds. There he continued to suffer acts of cruelty, torture and deprivation.
Shaker was among the prisoners who protested against the harsh conditions and he soon became a respected spokesperson for the other detainees. Following his role in a major hunger strike in June and July 2005, he organised a prisoners council. All the prisoners’ requests were denied, and to silence him Shaker was put into solitary confinement for five years. Articles 5 and 9 of the universal declaration of human rights state:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
and
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”,
yet Shaker’s lawyer in the US, Brent Mickum, stated:
“Shaker is still being tortured down there. Shaker has been jailed as long as anyone, undergoing regular torture from beating to food and sleep deprivation. There isn’t a shred of evidence against him.”
Shaker has now been held without charge for over a decade. President Obama promised to close Guantanamo by January 2010 and to restore the US to the rule of law. However, Guantanamo still remains open, with the remaining detainees losing hope of an end to their ordeal, in which all their human rights have been denied. Shaker Aamer was cleared for release by the Bush Administration in 2007. In January 2010, the Obama taskforce review reaffirmed his status. In August 2007, the UK Government recognised Shaker’s right to return as a long-term resident and requested his release to the UK. This request was strenuously repeated on subsequent occasions. In July 2010, the Prime Minister stated that the coalition Government would continue to request his release.
Shaker’s family live in Battersea and they are British citizens. They were represented formerly by Martin Linton and now by the current Member of Parliament for Battersea, both of whom have worked assiduously to secure his release. All he is asking for is to return to his family to live with his four young children back home in London. It is beyond belief, frankly, that he is still detained in Guantanamo, having been cleared twice. It is extremely hard for his family and friends to bear. He has done no wrong but has been greatly wronged by the shameful action of the US Government, unfortunately with some collusion originally by the UK Government. He has suffered cruel and inhuman treatment, including many years incarcerated in solitary confinement in a cell of 6 feet by 8 feet. Shaker’s mental and physical health is a cause of great concern. Following recent visits from his lawyers, it was reported that he is “gradually dying in Guantanamo” from his many medical problems and from the years of abuse.
I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the telephone again to Washington to ask that Shaker be released. He is innocent, he has been cleared twice, and he should be returned home.
Jeremy Corbyn
I was happy to be with my hon. Friend yesterday delivering a letter about this to Downing street. I am sure he agrees that if President Obama can, correctly, release the remaining members of the Miami five and show a rapprochement with Cuba, he could release somebody who is in prison in Cuba whom he has the power to release, and do it quickly.
John McDonnell
It is perfectly open to the President to do this now. There is a window of opportunity that may close in January as a result of the changes in Congress, so now is the time for him to act. A number of MPs from all political parties have signed a plea to urge the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to Washington to ensure that Shaker is returned home to his family by Christmas.
I want to raise two other things. This Christmas will the last Christmas when my constituents and many others in the London borough of Hillingdon will have the opportunity to use the services of Randalls store in Uxbridge, because it is closing. It has served our community over generations and decades. I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), his predecessors, his family and the staff for the service they have provided. I wish him and all the staff well in the future. The store will be greatly missed as a local community facility.
This morning I visited pupils at Harlington community school, a local secondary school where a group of sixth formers had, of their own volition, collected parcel after parcel of food to be provided to Hillingdon food bank. I wish them a very happy Christmas. I take pride in what they have done and their generosity as young people working hard on behalf of the community. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff a happy Christmas.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
There can be no more appropriate moment to call Sir John Randall.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
One of the regrets I will have when I leave this House will be not to work alongside—at least in parliamentary terms; I may be able to do so in an extra-parliamentary way—my comrade in arms, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
This will be my last Christmas Adjournment debate. Like all good things, it must come to an end. Yesterday in the Division Lobby, I rather got the impression that the time had come to leave, because as I approached the desk to register my vote, I pulled out my Oyster card. I think that sums up the fact that I am getting ready to go.
I remember these Adjournment debates with great pleasure. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was Deputy Leader of the House, he used to make very amusing wind-up speeches in which he gave all the speakers roles from various television sit-coms, such as “’Allo ’Allo!”, “Dad’s Army”, and perhaps appropriately, “Are You Being Served?” As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, I was usually portrayed as Young Mr Grace. I think the Prime Minister must have read some of those Hansard reports, because he used to refer to me as Young Mr Grace. I do not think that was necessarily a compliment, but I will take it as such.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, unfortunately the family business is closing its doors. I want to thank the staff who have worked there over the years. When I go around canvassing or talking to constituents and they mention the store, it is usually not the quality of the products that they talk about—although they do mention the things they have bought—but the wonderful staff. The longest-serving member of staff has been there 42 years and I assure the House that I will do whatever I can to help those who want to find another job. I will do my very best.
Having witnessed the experiences of those looking for work elsewhere, I am shocked at how the retail world has changed. The sort of employment being offered now, including zero-hours contracts, makes it quite scary for people going into the retail business. All of us, as consumers, have to take some blame for that, because it is consumer pressure that leads to margins being cut and everybody looking at how they can do that, and I am afraid that employment is one of the affected areas. Although I can blame online services and lots of other things, we all have to take responsibility for that.
On the issue of long-serving members of staff who have probably done more for my constituents than I have ever done, I want to mention my secretary, Mrs Delma Beebe, who has been with me since I entered the House in 1997. She started working in the House in 1963, in the Refreshment Department. In 1967 she took on a Member of Parliament and I am her latest, and probably her last, MP. She is the person with whom my constituents have most interaction. If it was not for her, I am not sure that I would be here today, because they may well have booted me out.
One of my constituents, Mr Conrad Tokarczyk, has raised with me the issue of step-free access in underground stations, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I have been working on that, together with Deborah King. She is another constituent of mine who is always coming up with good and interesting ideas, although I do not always agree with them. For instance, she wants job sharing for MPs, but I do not understand how that would work with votes. Anyway, step-free access is very important and there are some innovative ideas about how businesses could provide sponsorship. Money could also be taken off a passenger’s Oyster card—to return to my favourite subject—on a voluntary basis and given to their particular station in order for it to improve its facilities. Transport for London should find out how much the necessary improvements will cost, because then we would know the sum we are working towards.
One of the things I have been very pleased to have played a small part in during my time in the House is the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, because I did some work on marine issues. I was delighted to hear the recent announcement on fisheries. The anglers and I do not always agree—they have different policies from mine on cormorants and goosanders—but I have spoken to Members and an ex-Member, Martin Salter, and they are disappointed that there are not enough measures relating to the preservation of sea bass stocks. We should address that.
I know that not only the House but somebody from Private Eye who likes to follow these debates and regards my speeches as among the most boring things that happen in this place would be disappointed if I did not mention birds in the remaining minutes of my speech. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) did not take my intervention earlier, because I was going to welcome him to the side of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember having a heated discussion with him in the Members’ Lobby some time ago. He had said during a Westminster Hall debate that houses were more important than birds, so I was going to congratulate him on his Damascene conversion in the past few months. Is it not refreshing to find UKIP actually speaking on behalf of west African migrants? We should all welcome that.
I want to talk about a success story, which Members from both sides of the House can take pleasure in. The numbers of bittern—the bog bumper, as it is also known—have been increasing. It is a marvellous bird. People do not need to go to incredibly special places to see them. In the winter, not far away at the London Wetland centre in Barnes, people can, if they are lucky, see these elusive denizens of the marsh. In 1997, there were only 11 booming males. They are called that because of their display call, which can be heard for miles.
Sir John Randall
I do not think that Hansard had better try to do it.
In 2014, there are now 140 boomers, or singing males, over 61 sites. The great thing is that that is all the result not only of a bittern project, but of making sure that the reed beds are in a good way. I am particularly pleased about the reed beds not only for the bitterns, but for other denizens of the reed beds that are doing really well. One bird that I perhaps feel a great affinity for, and which is also doing well, is the bearded tit. [Laughter.]
On that note, as always at this time of year, we like to thank everybody who works in the House. Because I worked with them for a long time, I particularly want to refer to the people in the Government Whips Office. I have previously mentioned those at the very top of it—Mark Kelly, Roy Stone and Kate Wilson—but I also want to mention Claire Scott and the others in the administration unit.
Finally, I must mention one person whom I have never referred to in Parliament before, but who has done as much for me as anybody else in this place—my wife Kate, and I will also mention our children Peter, David and Elizabeth. If it had not been for their support, I would have been even grumpier than I normally am.
Finances of the House of Commons
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I would like to add my name to that tribute to the Member with the most poetically named constituency, let me put it that way— the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—who has worked tirelessly on behalf of all of us and all the staff. I would also like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the staff who service this House.
I want to raise an issue that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman before—specifically about the security staff. There are about 300 of them who service this House and provide us with excellent security services overall. Appendix 1 to the Finance and Services Committee report refers to the policy context, stating:
“There are a number of significant policy matters and events on the horizon that may have a bearing on the budget.”
Included in that list is the
“Renewal of the security arrangements in 2015”.
About 250 of these 300 security staff are members of the trade union, PCS, and I chair the PCS parliamentary group—a cross-party group that takes an interest in the policies of the union, with a particular interest in the staff who work here.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will know the history. The contract expires at the end of March next year, so its future will need to be decided. There were discussions about whether the Metropolitan police would be allocated that contract and indeed about whether they were interested in having it renewed. There was a proposal to give the work on the House’s three main entrances to a private company. I met Mr Paul Martin to discuss that matter, and I found him to be nothing but helpful when he informed us as much as he could about the options available to him. My understanding, as far as can be discerned, is that the Met is not keen on continuing the contract, so the options are privatisation, part-privatisation or bringing the staff in-house. The staff very clearly want to be brought in-house.
Prior to or during the summer it was argued that it would be impractical to split the security arrangements so that the three gates were given to a private company, with the rest of the security arrangements being handled by other staff employed either by the Met directly or by another company. Even the Met argued that we need a fully integrated service rather than have it divided in this way. I share that view. When will a decision about this matter be made? Is it forthcoming? The staff want to know what their futures will be and they favour maximum security. As I say, if the Met is not going to continue the contract, they want to be brought in-house. If there are concerns about rushing to a decision, there is also the option of extending the existing contract for a number of years.
My personal view is that I would be very worried and anxious about bringing in a private company to operate this contract, certainly if the work were to be divided up in that way. The last thing I want, frankly, is G4S or something like it to be responsible for security here, particularly during a period of heightened security risk, as we have all acknowledged, and particularly as we move towards a general election that, to say the least, will see significant changes taking place in the political climate.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I presume that when the hon. Gentleman refers to security, he is not implying that outside contractors would be armed. We would still require the Metropolitan police to have an armed facility beside them. I presume he is not suggesting that we could sub-contract that aspect.
John McDonnell
The proposal was for the privatisation of the three main entrances and all the security aspects of running them—basically, the search facility. I think that the Met had come to the conclusion themselves that disaggregating the security service in that way would make it very difficult to manage the whole arrangements. Where we have seen those sorts of disaggregations of security services, we have seen breakdowns in communication, leading to reduced security, putting people at risk. In a heightened period of security—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking specifically about one section of those who were in the House to help facilitate it. He was answering an intervention, but I remind all hon. Members that we do not discuss security issues on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman started out in order, but was tempted down a more complex route about the security of the House. I know that he wants to return to his substantive point.
John McDonnell
It is very easy to be tempted in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Let me return to the point. It is important for a decision to be made now so that staff can know what their futures will be. I suggest that the Committee should ensure that the security arrangements remain with the Metropolitan police unless they do not wish that, in which case staff should be employed in-house. That would enable us to maximise the security arrangements of the House during the coming potentially difficult period.
John Thurso
I am most grateful to all Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been quite wide-ranging and had its light-hearted moments, but it has also been very serious, and I think that it does us credit to have discussed our affairs in that way. I will attempt to answer the questions that have been put directly to me, but if for any reason I miss one, I will certainly write to the hon. Member concerned.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about security. I have in my brief, in huge, red, block capitals, the words, “You’re not allowed to talk about security in the Chamber”, so I will not. However, I will say that obviously our security is of paramount importance, and so too is value for money. I observe that many places similar to ours get that best security and best value from an in-House security force. I have no idea what the House might do, but I am sure that it will be based on the best evidence externally.
John McDonnell
I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman any further, but can he indicate what the time scale is for decision making on that?
John Thurso
Proposals on the principles of the way forward, rather than the detail, have been received and will be put to the Commission and the House Committee of the Lords at their next meetings. If the proposals are agreed to in principle, the detailed work will take place, but I would not anticipate any particular changes until well into next year. I hope that answer is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. The director of security would probably give him a fuller briefing, if he would like to take him up on that.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his full account of the work of the Administration Committee. One of the features of this Parliament has been the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee finding a very good way of working together, with the Administration Committee taking the lead on the services and the Finance and Services Committee taking the lead on the financial implications of that. I am most grateful for his contribution.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House, or deputy shadow Leader of the House—I am not sure which way around it is—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), asked a number of substantial questions. The first was where I got the figure of £2.7 million from. The answer is page 10 of the report, which states:
“In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million.”
However, he is absolutely right to ask, as always, because the update is that the like-for-like total net cost for catering services was £1.2 million in the first six months of 2014-15, against £2.25 million in the equivalent period of 2013-14, a reduction of £1.5 million, or 47%. Certainly, that being £360,000 better than budget, it is to be hoped that that will be carried through to the end of the year. I hope that is a reasonable answer. I will write to him about the first question he asked during my speech, but I direct him to annex D on page 32 in relation to the costs of restoration and renewal.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned charities. I absolutely agree that charities should not be penalised. That is part of the policies that have been adopted, and I see no chance of their being changed.
With regard to raising funds from those who come to watch us in this Chamber, there has never been any suggestion, ever, that money be paid by our constituents and the public to view the legislative process, Select Committee hearings, or any other part of our work—and nor should there be. There is a very distinct difference between people coming as members of the public to engage with the political process and those who come as tourists and pay for the privilege. The two are absolutely not linked.
Select Committee on Governance of the House
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Speaker’s announcement on 1 September of a pause in the process of appointment of a new Clerk of the House and Chief Executive, to give time for further consideration; and accordingly determines that:
(a) there shall be a select committee, called the House of Commons Governance Committee, to consider the governance of the House of Commons, including the future allocation of the responsibilities for House services currently exercised by the Clerk of the House and Chief Executive;
(b) the Committee report to the House by 12 January 2015;
(c) the Committee shall have the powers given to select committees related to government departments under paragraph 4(a) and 4(b) of Standing Order No. 152;
(d) Mr Jack Straw be the Chair of the Committee;
(e) the Committee shall consist of seven other backbench members, to be elected by parties in the proportion of three Conservative, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat, together with one representative of the other parties represented in the House; the parties shall forward their nominations to the Chair of the Committee of Selection by 14 October and any motion made in the House on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chair or another member of the Committee shall be treated as having been made in pursuance of Standing Order No. 121(2) for the purposes of Standing Order No. 15(1)(c).
It is an honour to open a debate on a motion to which so many distinguished Members have added their names—the co-sponsors include the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—and which has commanded support at all levels throughout the House.
The role of the Clerk of the House dates back to at least 1363. Today, the Clerk serves, first, as the House’s adviser on all aspects of procedure, practice and privilege and as the editor of “Erskine May”; secondly, as the chief executive of the House service and chair of the management board; and also, importantly, as accounting officer, as corporate officer, and as the head of the Clerks department, responsible for some 800 members of staff.
The motion is straightforward. It welcomes the announcement by the Speaker of a pause in the current recruitment to the post of Clerk; it establishes a new time-limited Select Committee to consider the governance of the House; it nominates the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) as Chair of that Committee; and it outlines the powers of the Committee, its reporting date and the election of its members. The debate arises because of widespread concern among Members in all parts of the House that the process governing the appointment of the next Clerk of the House was seriously flawed.
John McDonnell
I merely ask for clarification. Does the hon. Gentleman see the new Committee as a time-limited exercise, or as a permanent body?
Jesse Norman
As the motion makes clear, the Committee will be time-limited and report in January next year.
There has been some misunderstanding, and much heated discussion, of the clerkship. Those are issues to which I have no desire to add, but the following facts are not in dispute. First, the chosen candidate, Ms Carol Mills, an administrator in the Australian Parliament, was not qualified for the specifically constitutional and procedural functions exercised by the Clerk. Secondly—