Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has ploughed on, to his credit, but it has been difficult for him to be heard. His words should be heard, and I hope that there will be some courtesy from Members.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T6. I welcome the Minister’s offering IT procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises through the G-Cloud. Is he aware of a local constituency company called The Bunker secure hostings, which offers data for SMEs to access G-Gloud?

[Mr Maude]

I am glad that G-Cloud, which we set up, now has 800 suppliers on it, two thirds of which are SMEs, and that an increasing amount of business is being awarded through it. I hope that the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be successful in winning business through that innovative way of enabling the purchase of IT services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen, I think, about 700 penalties issued for not paying the minimum wage, so we are taking enforcement action, but we need to take more enforcement action. As the Chancellor has made clear, we also want the opportunity for the minimum wage to rise. As our economy recovers, it should be possible, listening to the Low Pay Commission, to restore the value of the minimum wage. We are keen to see that happen.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q4. I know that the Prime Minister deals in facts, and the facts are that we have more jobs in this country than ever recorded before and a growth prediction higher than anybody would have thought a year ago. Will we now consider whether the level of the minimum wage could be raised to ensure that everyone benefits from this recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is extremely good news that more than 30 million people—a record number—are in work. Under this Government, the minimum wage has gone up by 10%, and our tax cut for low earners is equivalent to another 10% increase in the minimum wage, but as I have said I hope it will be possible to restore the real value of the minimum wage. We should listen and allow the Low Pay Commission to do its work—I do not want this issue to become a political football—but everyone agrees that as the economy recovers it should be possible to restore that value.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman should start with the fact that his party has taken £1.6 million—not a £5,000 cap—from Mr Mills and advised him how to dodge the tax.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q5. Under the last Government, communities such as Thanet were left and abandoned on benefits. Was my right hon. Friend impressed by the thousands of jobs created in Sandwich, London Array and our jobs fair? This Government are putting people back into work.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was impressed on visiting Thanet to see the jobs being created by the London Array. It is providing jobs in shipping for seamen, jobs in engineering, apprenticeships; it is a really important investment for this country, and we hope to see many more like it in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members need to be much briefer if we are to get through the questions.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T2. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the development of single pot funds and on what that will mean for east Kent in respect of the access to devolved money?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Chancellor announced recently that we will start with a so-called single pot, as proposed by Lord Heseltine, of just over £2 billion. That is just the start of the process. Local enterprise partnerships across the country will be able to bid for at least half of that money and the rest will be distributed on a formula basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have some unique and outstanding areas of beauty in Wales that need to be protected where possible, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, these projects are best dealt with case by case, balancing environmental considerations with those of affordability and, of course, the views of the local communities, which should be at the heart of all planning applications.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the role and importance of the aviation sector in Wales.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the role and importance of the aviation sector in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The aviation sector is vital to the Welsh economy, and I was pleased to see so many Welsh businesses represented at the Paris air show last month.

[Laura Sandys]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the UK’s overall aviation strategy is there to support more jobs, exciting top-end engineering and ensuring we have a strong technology base in this country?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, the United Kingdom aerospace industry is the second largest in the world, and is by far the largest in Europe, and it contributes some £24 billion per annum to the UK economy. The Government have set out our strategic vision for the UK’s civil aerospace sector in the aerospace industrial strategy, which includes Government investment of £2 billion over the next seven years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have had to make difficult decisions on public spending and welfare, but we have protected those on the lowest incomes and we have made sure there have been increases in some areas. That is what we have done with child tax credits, and it is a record we should support.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q3. The residents of Thanet enjoy burgers but also love horses. They will have been shocked to hear this morning that they may have been eating horsemeat. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he and his Government are doing a lot to reassure the diners of Thanet?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important and extremely serious issue. People in our country will have been very concerned to read this morning that while they thought they were buying beefburgers, they were buying something that had horsemeat in it. That is extremely disturbing news. I have asked the Food Standards Agency to conduct an urgent investigation. It has made it clear that there is no risk to public safety, because there is no food safety risk, but this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. The FSA will meet retailers and processors this afternoon and work with them to investigate the supply chain, but it is worth making the point that, ultimately, retailers have to be responsible for what they sell and where it has come from.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have only just started, to be fair. I wanted to start by saying that there are too many Members and, on top of that, too many who come from London and the south-east and too few who come from everywhere else. With a system of appointment, the people who do the appointing end up choosing people they already know, and that is why there is a heavy preponderance of people from London and the south-east. We also still have crooks, perjurers and arsonists up at the other end of the corridor. The hon. Gentleman will say, “Ah yes, but we can change all this through David Steel’s Bill,” but then we end up with a House of Lords that is solely appointed, and that is a House of patronage and power given to too few people, not to the people of the land.

We have the ludicrous situation of by-elections for hereditary peers. I say to all those who are opposed to the alternative vote system that we already have that system; it is used to elect people to the House of Lords. It is ironic that the last person who was elected in July last year, in a by-election that was not much commented on in the national media, was Lord Ashton of Hyde. I have never met that gentleman, and I suspect that few of us in this House have, but he got to stand as a hereditary peer only because of his original predecessor who was made a peer. That Lord Ashton of Hyde had been a Member of this House. He tried to get elected for Hyde several times and never managed to do so; but none the less, when he went to the Lords, he called himself Lord Ashton of Hyde. He went there because he had vacated his seat in the Commons two months before the vote on the Parliament Act 1911 to try to make sure that it could get through down at the other end of the building.

The system of having elected hereditaries in the Lords is completely bizarre, but it is even more bizarre to have the bishops of the Church of England there. There was an argument for that when we also had the bishops of Wales and Ireland, and some representation from Scotland, but it makes no sense for only one denomination representing one geographical area to be appointed to the House of Lords. I would move an amendment to get rid of all the bishops.

To those who argue in favour of the House of Lords on the basis of expertise, I would say that sometimes expertise is also a vested interest. Just take the case of two members of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, which is considering a very sensitive issue in politics. One of them is Lord Gold. Most Members have probably never heard of him, but he happens to be a Conservative peer. He also happens to be a lawyer who specialises in litigation. Some people might say, “That’s great—he has expertise,” but I would say that he has a commercial interest in the legislation that he is advising on. Similarly, Lord Black of Brentwood, as the executive director of the Telegraph Group, has a direct financial and commercial interest in the legislation that is going through. That is why I say that, all too often, the commercial interests of people down at that end of the building turn it into a corrupt House.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. Lady, because I know—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of questioning the nature and duties of Members of the other House and of going over the line in doing so, and I am sure that we would not want to do that.

[Laura Sandys]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about financial interests but could be about vested interests such as those of the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers or other organisations? Might people who are in the other House as a result of the status quo and have vested interests in the status quo therefore resist more radical change that might be proposed by this House?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point, because it was a very good one. A large number of those who spoke in the House of Lords in the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill had a personal, commercial, financial interest in supporting it. I am not questioning any individual, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the system of having expertise in the other House that many people advocate. Often, someone arrives in the other House with a degree of expertise and ends up staying there for another 30 years, which means that their expertise becomes extremely out of date. Furthermore, someone may have phenomenal expertise in medicine, but absolutely no understanding of the armed forces, or vice versa. Appointing people to the House of Lords on the basis of expertise is, I believe, a mistake.

I say to those who say that we need evolution, not revolution, that we have had two revolutions—one of them glorious and one of them perhaps inglorious. It was on the basis of those revolutions that many of the advances that we have had came about. We have had elected peers before. The 16 Scottish representative peers from 1707 to 1963 were elected at every general election. Similarly, the Irish peers were elected for life. We have had a mixed and evolving system. We introduced life peers. In 1963, we allowed women who had a peerage in their own right, suo jure, to sit in the House of Lords. I do not believe that this is the dramatic change that people claim; it is part of the evolution, not a revolution.

There are problems with the Bill, the most important of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who intervened on me but has now left the Chamber. It is the question of powers. I do not believe that the original version or the present version of clause 2 on the respective powers of the two Houses will meet the day. There is a third way. I do not want the courts to be able to decide on a row between this House and the other House. The best way to proceed would be to have a concordat between the two Houses that forms part of our Standing Orders, which requires that there can be no change in our House without the agreement of the House of Lords and no change in the House of Lords without the agreement of the House of Commons. Perhaps, as one hon. Member suggested earlier, that should rely on a two-thirds majority.

I think that a 15-year term is far too long. Six or nine years might be better, but we can debate that. I will also support 100% election. I say to my Liberal Democrat—I hate to say this word—friends, that I have long campaigned on this matter and I think that there is more likelihood of getting the reform if we have a referendum and if we ensure that the Bill is debated properly, because we are going to have to use the Parliament Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

The two Members who have excited me the most in this debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We need true, bicameral reform. Both parts of this Parliament need to look at themselves and ensure that we have a dynamic, active and reformed Parliament—one Parliament, two Chambers, which in my view should both be elected. I appreciate that the Bill is merely one step on the way and is not the answer to the big parliamentary deficit from which we suffer, but we have an opportunity to consider a new settlement between the public, Parliament and, most importantly, the Executive.

Although many people might have heard a lot of conflict in the debate and a lot of difference between the Government’s position and that of other Members, over the past 10 months the process of public debate, the proceedings of the Joint Committee, on which I served, and other discussions have delivered, in a strange way, a significant amount of consensus. There is consensus about a reduction in numbers in the Lords, the end of patronage and the decoupling of titles. Those are all fundamental points about the anomaly at the heart of our constitution, and I think we can agree on them. The sticking point is whether we have a second Chamber that is elected or selected.

In many people’s minds, the case for selection is that people without political bias would be appointed. Does that mean that membership of any political party would preclude someone from being put forward? What criteria would be used for the selection? As we have discussed before, we must consider whether people would represent vested interests and embed the status quo rather than offer a Parliament that can provide reform and take things forward. Are those people not a group of professionals who have benefited from the status quo and are part of the elite?

[Mr Gray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most passionate and powerful opponents of what the Government are doing with regard to, for example, the reductions in the armed forces are the field marshals, generals and others in the House of Lords? They are the passionate opponents of the Government, not their supporters.

[Laura Sandys]

Yes, but they have no vote on this matter, because it is one of financial restructuring. They can discuss it, but to be frank they do so more in the media than in Parliament. Formers members of the military, or of any institution, have every right to discuss Government proposals, but I am not sure they need the House of Lords to do that.

We have an example of how selection can be negative. One of the previous chairmen of the House of Lords Appointments Commission said, “We don’t want hairdressers in the House of Lords.” I am very proud that we have a hairdresser in our House. Any selection process will not choose people who have not been to the right dinner party. Those who do not know the right people, or who have not networked and become well connected, or those who do not come from the south-east, will not be selected.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

How many hairdressers will be selected on a party list?

[Laura Sandys]

Hon. Members come from many different backgrounds. Party associations select people from the parts of the country they are to represent. Our parties should not be demeaned—we should not say that they should not have that responsibility. In my case, the party has made an excellent choice.

We have a fundamental problem. We have one Parliament, but two Chambers as important as each other. Our hybrid system—one elected Chamber and one appointed —makes a mockery of our democracy and hobbles Parliament’s overall legitimacy. In addition, it creates a problem for those resisting reform. If the House of Lords is only a revising, advisory, “think again” Chamber, it is very expensive. If it is a proper part of a bicameral legislature, as I believe it should be, it must be elected if we are to sustain a self-respecting democracy.

[Louise Mensch]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that we recently had a referendum on changing the voting system for the Westminster Parliament, which the public overwhelmingly rejected? Is not the Bill an attempt to introduce that through the back door?

[Laura Sandys]

I disagree. We will have two Chambers and two electoral systems, and two different outcomes. As a result, there will be strengths in both Chambers. They will complement each other and create much greater rigour when it comes to scrutiny and the legislative process.

Back Benchers of all parties constantly complain about the diminishing power of Parliament. Many claim the Executive is too strong. How can the concentration of powers in the hands of three party leaders, who appoint hundreds of legislators to the Chamber next door, be anything other than extreme patronage gone out of control? It is unprecedented anywhere in the democratic world.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Sandys]

I am afraid I will not—I am so sorry.

Opponents of reform seem very concerned that the poor old Government will struggle to get their legislation through Parliament if there are two elected, functioning Houses, but the House of Commons is not the Government —it is separate. I would hope that two elected Houses of Parliament would not defeat any Government any more than they do in other bicameral systems in the world. However, it is no bad thing if a stronger Parliament deters the Government from passing ill-considered legislation. I am a good Conservative, and, in that way, the objective of getting the Government to do less better would also be achieved.

We cannot blame our coalition partners for some of the philosophy behind the Bill. Localism and elected police commissioners are Conservative policies, not policies conjured up by the coalition. Trusting the public with decision making on schools and other public services is part of the Conservative DNA, so why should we deny the public the choice to vote for 50% of our Parliament? It is absolutely crucial that we Conservatives are seen to be giving power to the many and taking it away from the few.

Perhaps not every aspect of the Bill is perfect—some of us might be looking for more radical reform—but it is a crucial step forward. It is an opportunity to say that we trust the people, and that we are taking away the appointments system from the Prime Minister and giving it to the electorate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The power of a whiff of ermine on people’s opinions on reform of the House of Lords has never failed to amaze me. All I can say is that the manifesto commitments of the hon. Gentleman’s party, my party and the Conservative party were clearly in favour of completing this century-long debate on the reform of the other place. I think we should now get on with it.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

When the Bill is published, will it come with a financial assessment of what will happen to the House of Lords if we do not reform it, and of what will happen once we get to, say, 2020, when we will have to equalise every time there is a change of government in this place?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We will, of course, publish the financial implications. The hon. Lady is right to highlight an issue that has not been given sufficient attention—how unsustainable the status quo is. Are people really comfortable with a second Chamber that will soon be composed of 1,000 or more members, in which more than 70% are there through nothing more than political patronage and in which they receive £300 tax-free just for turning up?

Industrial Action

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear yesterday, more will be got out of the banks than was the case under the Labour Government, who made such an enormous fuss about this. Public sector pensions will continue to be extremely generous, and that is what we want.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I commend the immigration contingency plan. My husband came through Heathrow very smoothly at 6 o’clock this morning. There was a lack of enthusiasm for the mandate for this strike. Will my right hon. Friend update us on exactly how many people are taking industrial action, as enthusiasm for being on strike today seems not to reflect the unions’ enthusiasm for this event?

[Mr Maude]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s husband had an easy ride. There are reports that, at some airports, the service is better than it usually is. I commend all those immigration staff who have come to work as normal and all of those who have, in a public-spirited way, volunteered to help to ensure that the borders are secure and that disruption is kept to an absolute minimum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with constitutional historians and experts on House of Lords reform; and if he will make a statement.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

4. What recent progress he has made on his plans for House of Lords reform; and if he will make a statement.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

8. What recent representations he has received on House of Lords reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

One matter of great concern in this Chamber is that the other place is most certainly secondary to it. Does my right hon. Friend see the opportunity to remove any ability for the other place to initiate legislation as a way to ensure the hierarchy between this place and the other place?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As we explained in our White Paper, we believe that the different mandates, electoral systems and terms of office, and of course the conventions enshrined in the Parliament Acts, will guarantee that although there will no doubt be an evolution in the relationship between the two Houses—that is bound to happen under any arrangement—the hierarchy between this place and the other place will remain intact.

House of Lords Reform

Laura Sandys Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and I agree with much of what she said.

Obviously Parliament is not just this House, but it appears that this House, the legitimate House, is the House that lacks confidence in itself. The big fear is that giving more legitimacy to the House of Lords will diminish powers here, but the reforms that we are discussing, which will mean greater legitimacy for the other place, give us an opportunity collectively to hold the Government to greater account: to examine, cajole, petition and more effectively, not less effectively, ensure that there is greater scrutiny of Government. We need to claim back more powers collectively, and with a legitimate other place we can add to Parliament’s powers without any erosion of the powers in this Chamber.

It is not a zero sum game. If we have a stronger and more representative secondary Chamber, this place will not be diminished. Not only is it defeatist to think that we might be diminished, but such thinking does not reflect the history or tradition of Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) so eloquently observed, Parliament is here to take power away from the Executive. That is why it was created, and one of my ancestors spent a bit of time in the Tower of London as a result.

The proposed reform would also remedy a long-standing sore at the heart of our Parliament: the power of patronage. Since the inception of Parliament, the main thread linking generation to generation in this Chamber has been the fight against patronage. There is nothing more invidious than the patronage that accompanies the bestowal of membership of the House of Lords. It is much worse than the system of hereditary peers, it is much more open to questionable donations, and it allows Members of Parliament to be moved from this place to make way for high-fliers. In my view that system is not tolerable, and should have been reformed decades ago.

Nevertheless, I am not entirely uncritical of these proposals, but we need to think about the name that we give to the new version of the upper House. It must be defined as the junior Chamber: it must be seen not as upper or superior but as secondary, and, as many Members have suggested, the role of that secondary Chamber must be understood in relation to constituency MPs. We must decouple the issue of membership from that of honours. Sitting in a secondary Chamber is a job of work, not a fast track to aggrandisement.

There are two more fundamental issues with which the Committee’s consultation must deal. If we are to strengthen Parliament, we need more, not less, scrutiny of long-term planning by Government. I think that 15 years is an excellent term during which to examine a Government’s strategic policies, rather than examining their immediate legislation as we do. Most fundamentally, the secondary Chamber must not be able to initiate legislation. It should be able to petition Members of this House to introduce legislation, but it must not initiate it by means of private Members’ Bills, ten-minute rule Bills or any other mechanism.

This is one Parliament with two Chambers, one of which has its hands tied behind its back. We need to release it from its lack of legitimacy. Let us worry less about powers moving between the two Chambers, and spend more time thinking about the overall power that both Houses of Parliament should wrest back from the Executive.