Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

We would have invested from the beginning in our infrastructure and skills, so we would have grown the economy and would not have had to borrow £700 billion for failure, rather than for growth success. Because the focus of the Government was on chasing an unachievable surplus target, they did not use the borrowing wisely. The sound policy, as recommended by international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, and by the CBI and the TUC here in Britain, is to put the Government to work in supporting investment. Instead, over nearly seven wasted years, the Government have cut investment to the lowest level in a decade.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have borrowed a hell of a lot of money, probably too much, since 2010—£700 billion—but does that not give the lie to the idea that there has been grinding austerity? We have borrowed a huge amount of money and struck a balance in trying to maintain welfare. One of the most insidious forms of investment under the last Labour Administration was the public-private partnership and the private finance initiative, much of which we will be paying off for decades to come—a colossal amount of so-called investment that actually is just adding more to our ongoing debt.

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall my opposition to PFI and its failures, but let me be clear: to borrow for investment, to ensure that people have the skills and resources necessary to tackle the productivity crisis and thereby grow the economy and create the high skills and wages which mean that people can pay their taxes and fund our public services, is creditable; however, what we have seen over the last seven years is borrowing because of the failure of the Government’s economic policy.

In the past seven years, the Government have actually cut investment, and the consequences of insufficient investment are painfully clear. Austerity measures and low investment have fed directly into what the Governor of the Bank of England has called a “lost decade” for earnings. Productivity growth has stagnated, as even the Government’s own industrial strategy White Paper acknowledged. I share the Chancellor’s concerns: every hour worked in Britain now produces a third less than every hour worked in the US, Germany and France. We have been arguing that case at least since I became shadow Chancellor, but we had no acknowledgment of it from the Government until yesterday.

With that record of under-investment, it is no use those on the Government Benches talking about a post-Brexit Britain taking on the world. An economy with low productivity can compete only on the lowest common denominator, and that means, as has happened, slashing wages and salaries and hacking away at social protections, such as the NHS and pensions. This is the grim reality of the Conservative’s low-investment, low-productivity, low-wage economy, and it can easily get worse. For some on the Government Benches, an economy shorn of basic protections in the workplace, with rock-bottom wages and social spending provisions stripped to the barest minimum, would be a desirable goal. We have had a glimpse of that future in the Chancellor’s own threats to turn Britain into a tax haven. Even to hold out this prospect is to admit that the Government have no better plan than the steady management of decline.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

What we now have in our economy is a scandal of bogus self-employment. A lot of the growth in self-employment has happened on that basis, and it includes the most exploitative aspects. The hon. Gentleman mentions inequality, so let us look at some of the figures. If we use an index other than the Gini coefficient, which does not take into account the real outstripping of the super-rich, such as the P90/P10 ratio—this looks at the 10th and 90th percentiles of income distribution—we find that inequality has risen every year over the past five years. Let us look at what has happened out there in individual companies. If we compare the average total pay of FTSE 100 chief executives with that of their employees in 2015, we find a ratio of 129:1; in the mid-1990s, it was no more than 45:1. That shows the grotesque levels of inequality that result from the economy that has been created over the past seven years.

Yesterday’s Green Paper seemed to recognise the failure of previous policy, and there has certainly been a change of rhetoric. The Prime Minister has suddenly been won over by the merits of an active industrial policy. The recognition that the six previous years have failed badly is welcome, but nowhere is it clear that the Government recognise the scale of the problem. The weaknesses and inequalities in our economy stem from decades of underinvestment, when decisions about what and where to invest have been taken by too few people at the top and to the benefit of that tiny handful. That leads to an economy in which the Government are planning for more than £5,000 of investment per head in London, compared with just £413 in the north-east of England. It is an economy in which a single London capital project receives more Government backing than the whole of Yorkshire, and in which the £500 million promised yesterday for the north of England is set against £18 billion of cuts from local authority budgets since 2010.

[Mark Field]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I see that the right hon. Gentleman is ready to jump in again.

[Mark Field]

The shadow Chancellor will recognise that he should be doing the same as me by defending London’s honour to a certain extent. Surely he recognises that if the significant amounts coming into our capital city were not invested here, they would go to another global capital, so it is not a case of money coming to London rather than another part of the UK. It is also the case that many of the cranes in my constituency—and, indeed, those in his constituency near Heathrow—are engaged in infrastructure projects involving large-scale investment. Such projects are producing huge numbers of construction jobs and are contracting well beyond the capital city. A lot of investment goes on here in London, but it has a benefit well beyond the capital city—

National Gallery Industrial Dispute

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

There have been a series of examples of what can only be described as victimisation, and I fear that this is one of them.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Gallery is in my constituency. I have received a number of representations and am very concerned about what is said tonight. I am afraid that I will have to leave shortly, but I will read the full Hansard report of the debate. This dispute is particularly regrettable because the gallery was one of the first employers in central London to pay the living wage, which we should all support. I hope that he will give at least some credit in that regard, although I accept that there are some very worrying specifics in relation to the case to which he refers.

[John McDonnell]

I certainly will, because it was a campaign by the PCS that achieved the living wage, but it was intervention by Ministers and others, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that urged the employers to give the living wage in London. That shows that interventions by Ministers and others do work in these cases. All that I am asking for today is that we all recognise our responsibility to try to bring both sides together to resolve the dispute, because the gallery is a national institution of great significance.

Some 22,000 have already written to Mark Getty, who chairs the gallery’s board of trustees, calling for Candy Udwin to be reinstated. The gallery’s argument on the matter is that cuts in its grant aid require it to organise a greater number of fundraising events, and that it therefore requires greater flexibility from its workforce. The gallery claims that the staff and PCS have

“refused to agree any changes”

or to agree greater flexibility and that, therefore, it had no choice but to outsource them to a private company. That is simply untrue, as has been shown in the evidence I have seen directly from the union and in meetings with the staff. The union has put forward an alternative plan that proposes a new flexible contract that would guarantee the gallery all the flexibility it needs, as well as being supported by the staff. The union has persistently asked gallery managers and trustees for the opportunity to discuss the alternative plan properly, which it believes has never happened.

The PCS tried to engage in talks at the gallery last year, and at ACAS earlier this year, and it continues to call for talks. The union has even carried out its own scoping exercise, which confirms that there would be support from the staff for its plan and that its proposals would guarantee the flexibility that the gallery requires. The union will shortly present its detailed proposals to ACAS and invite it to organise an independent scoping exercise to confirm the union’s findings with regard to the flexibility of working that will meet the gallery’s demands. Interestingly, as recently as this week, in Newsweek magazine, the outgoing director, Nicholas Penny, was reported as

“voicing a preference to keep visitor services in house.”

There is a responsibility on all of us, including the Minister, to encourage a resolution to this dispute to help get both sides back to talks before further damage is done to the gallery and its reputation. If we can help to encourage the gallery and the union to find an agreeable solution, that would give the incoming director, Dr Gabriele Finaldi, and the new chair of trustees, Hannah Rothschild, who take up their posts in August, an opportunity to heal the wounds of this dispute and the damage done by it and take the gallery forward with the staff in support of them.

I know that Ministers are loth to intervene in arm’s length bodies, but the National Gallery is funded by the taxpayer and has national significance, so it is a special case, where ministerial involvement is required. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said, everyone was pleased when the intervention took place that helped to ensure that the gallery overturned its previous refusal to pay the London living wage, which will now be paid from 1 July. It would be possible for all of us present in the House, including the Minister, to make a statement to encourage the gallery to attend talks at ACAS in an attempt to resolve this dispute. That has happened before in past disputes and should happen again today.

The crux of the issue is that the National Gallery is arguing that it needs to raise additional funds through out-of-hours fundraising events—an important part of its strategy to cope with the reduction in grant aid. However, everyone is now saying that that should not be at the expense of the quality of the service that the gallery provides to those who visit it for free. In November 2013, the gallery and the board of trustees agreed with this, arguing that privatisation would not be in the interests of the gallery in terms of the quality of service or financially. A document published by the trustees said:

“A well trained and committed workforce in-house, with a good understanding of the Gallery’s specific circumstances”

will provide the best quality of service for the National Gallery, its 6 million visitors, and all those who access its collections for education and enjoyment.

There is no evidence that that does not remain the case. In fact, all the evidence shows that so far the privatisation and outsourcing is leading to reductions in the quality of terms and conditions for staff and of the service that those staff provide. There is some evidence for this at the National Gallery. CIS, the private company that has been brought in on a temporary basis to provide visitor services and security, has told its staff that it is not their job to answer questions from the public about the paintings. This is a gallery! PCS believes that there has also been an increase in the number of complaints from members of the public about the behaviour of the staff working for CIS.

Let us contrast that with the National Gallery’s own staff. They are extremely knowledgeable about the collection and see it as part of their duties to inform the public about the paintings, where they are located, and if they are off-show for any reason, as well as giving information or advice if asked. That is a crucial service provided at the gallery, especially for those visiting for the first time or those without specialist knowledge of the collection. Staff who are planned to be outsourced include those in the information service, those who deal with school bookings and support for school visits, and those who deal with complaints and freedom of information requests. The process of privatisation is going on apace, threatening all the expertise that has been built up over generations.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulate him on his elevation.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have some sympathy with the broad thrust of his views. There is a risk that Transport for London could become over-leveraged and that land, which is very scarce in London, might be misused when it could be used for purposes connected with housing in particular.

I have a wider concern, however. I fear that there will be increasing hostility in other parts of the United Kingdom towards large-scale infrastructure investment here in London. Whether we like it or not, Transport for London is the only mechanism that allows us to drive that vital infrastructure forward, for the good of the capital and the good of all its residents, current and future.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, which I will try to address when we turn to the specific amendments. I thought there were issues on which we could have had compromise; the main thrust of the first group of amendments is to secure openness, transparency and, most importantly, a consultative decision-making process. I have sat down with each of the petitioners. The whole point of these amendments is the need for consultative engagement by TfL and its subsidiaries when dealing with sites in their areas.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I very much agree that we should be proud of the traditions of a free press in this country. The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered on the extent of the definition of journalism. I accept that new clause 1(6) is not exhaustive, but he has not mentioned religious counsellors, whom many would consider to have a similar duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on that, though I accept that he has not made an exhaustive list at this stage? [Interruption.]

[John McDonnell]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley says that my local parish priest rather optimistically describes me as a lapsed Catholic. The secrets of the confessional need to be included; otherwise, there might be an excommunication.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) makes a good point about journalism. I would like the definition to be membership of the NUJ, but there you are. These days, I would have the widest interpretation, but if it is to be contested, I would like to see a court make the decision on the basis of the evidence before it.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me just finish this point, then I will give way; I welcome the intervention.

In the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, the media very quickly started to say. “Well, they might have got off, but maybe they did it anyway.” A campaign then started in the gutter press. It did not matter how good the evidence was, they still came at us. They tried to damage the reputations of those individuals. What worries me is that a Secretary of State determining that a higher level of proof is required to gain compensation will affect the atmosphere that is created.

[Mark Field]

I must admit that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He expresses a specific concern about high-profile miscarriages of justice. However, is there not a concern that this new test of a convincing case brings a whole lot more uncertainty into the law? I dare say that it will be an absolute boon for the lawyers as to precisely where that comes into play. Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, the benefit of what the Minister is saying is that we at least have a certain test that is already set in English law.

[John McDonnell]

In my view, the Government’s test is faulty. I am not convinced of the need for this additional test anyway. At least the House of Lords edges towards some greater level of fairness. I would rather give up on this attempt to redefine.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised the case of Barry George. There has always been an ability in our system for the court awarding compensation to take into account whether the person contributed towards their plight. That has an effect on compensation levels or even whether compensation is awarded at all. By seeking to arrive at some definition in legislation, we are digging ourselves into a very complicated and costly hole, and that cost will be on the individuals who are desperately trying to ensure that they get some compensation for the ill that they have experienced as a result of the state’s failure to live up to a proper process. Additionally, it will be extremely costly for the state. As a result of the weakness in the definition proposed by the Government, we will see case after case being dragged through the English courts and then the European courts. In trying to remedy some form of perceived ill, we will create greater damage to those who have suffered enough.

In addition, the process that is under way at the moment risks making a laughing stock of the Government. As we have heard today, there will be arguments over the difference between “do not commit” and innocence, between “conclusively” and “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The lawyers will make a fortune. I plead for a common-sense approach. The compensation arrangements at the moment are not absolutely perfect, but at least we have managed to secure some compensation for those cases that have been quashed as a result of the state’s failure, and this is about the state’s failure to act accordingly.

There are many other cases. Susan May recently passed away, unfortunately, but her case is still being pursued to demonstrate her innocence, and I think that, rather than it being proved in the long run that the evidential base was the problem, it will be demonstrated that police processes were not adhered to and it will be another case that is eventually quashed. I hope that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will posthumously provide some proof that she should never have been taken through the courts, but again, the case has been dragged out over years, demonstrating how difficult it is, even when trying to prove the failure of due process, to secure not just a decision but any compensation. The new process will make it even harder to get compensation, drag the decision-making processes out for even longer and prove to be basically unfair.

I support the Lords amendment, because at least it moves us a little further forward, although I think even it will be open to significant challenge in the courts.

HM Revenue and Customs

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful for hon. Members’ attendance this morning at this debate about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its capacity and resources. Over the past decade or so, tax debates in Westminster Hall have usually been attended by the usual public administration anoraks—a club that I am a member of—or failed accountants who have been elected to the House of Commons, which is even worse. Not any more, however: the recession means that we all take an interest in public expenditure and look at every element of public income. A tax justice campaign is being waged as a result of the recession, and I pay tribute to tax justice campaigners John Christensen and Richard Murphy for their work over the years, as well as to UK Uncut, whose direct action campaign brought the issue to the attention of the public. It is concerned about the scandal of unpaid and uncollected tax. The debate reveals that our system does not work effectively.

There is another scandal associated with our taxation system: not just how much taxation is avoided or evaded, but how badly our tax collection and administration is managed overall—and, to be frank, how it has been mismanaged by politicians over the past few decades. At times, there has been almost catastrophic short-sightedness and incompetence. The genesis of the debate was a lobby by the Public and Commercial Services Union that happened in the past six months, and meetings with members. I chair the PCS parliamentary group, and the union represents 55,000 staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There have been many meetings with Members, and meetings in constituencies, to express the overwhelming sense of frustration, which has at times verged on anger that, as professionals, staff have been held back from fulfilling their role of ensuring that taxes are collected efficiently.

There is a particular sense of frustration because during the recession HMRC could, through tax collection, make a significant contribution to tackling the economic crisis and, indeed, the overall deficit. Staff feel that they are being held back professionally, and undermined by cuts: staffing cuts, office closures, deteriorating work conditions resulting in low morale, and the lack of appropriate professional and legislative tools to do the job. Time and again the view has been expressed that more and more policy changes load responsibilities on to them—more work for an overstretched and overburdened work force. The expression used by many of the staff is that they have been set up to fail—in some instances so that their jobs can be privatised. I want to explore the current situation in HMRC and consider the remedies that are needed. The Government need to stand back at this point, and consider staffing resources and the challenges that staff face.

What is the job? It dates back to the time of Chaucer, the earliest famous tax collector—a putative PCS shop steward. It is simply to collect taxes. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales circulated an excellent brief before the debate, and summed it up. HMRC simply makes the tax system work: that is what it is meant to do, but the reality is that it struggles to do so. We know that from the evidence that is available to us. If the main role of HMRC is to collect the taxes, it is clear from the recent evidence that it has not the resources and legislative tools to do so. That is clear from the evidence of the tax gap—we have debated the tax gap at length in this Chamber and I appreciate that there are disputes about using it as an overall assessment of performance, and about the overall level of the tax gap itself, but we know that the range is anything from the £70 billion to £120 billion estimated by Tax Research UK, under Richard Murphy, and the HMRC’s and the Minister’s estimate of between £30 billion and £40 billion a year. In other words, even on the Government’s own assessment, half the current deficit is not being collected in taxes, because of tax avoidance and evasion.

The scale of tax avoidance and evasion has caused anger throughout our communities. It is not only the tax justice campaigns and the media that have been railing against them—so have the Government. In December the Chancellor said that people are “right to be angry” about companies not paying their fair share of the tax, and I fully agree with him. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said in November that it was “completely unacceptable” that companies could get away with what he described as gaming the system, to avoid tax, and referred to “appalling stories of abuse” within the tax system.

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee, which has been consistently complimented on its excellent role, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), tore aside the veil that covered the operation, mainly in secret, of the major accountancy companies of devising, and ruthlessly implementing, large-scale—massive—avoidance schemes described by some as obscene. It is worth repeating the scale of what we have seen, in example after example: Starbucks paying only £8.5 million in corporation tax since it was launched here in 1998, despite £3 billion of sales; Google paying £6 million in tax last year on a turnover of £395 million; Apple paying £14.5 million in tax on £1 billion of sales. Numerous other examples have been highlighted by the PAC and others in the investigations of the past year.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has listed a range of selective statistics, but he is well aware that tax is paid on profits, not turnover. Part and parcel of sales is VAT, so taxes other than corporation tax are involved. Does he think that a big danger in the debate is the intermingling of the sense of tax evasion, which is absolutely illegal, with tax avoidance? Not only is tax avoidance legal, but it is bizarre for politicians in government to rail about it, as they have it within their power to change the law to remove loopholes.

[John McDonnell]

That is an excellent point, which goes to the heart of the debate, because I agree with the Prime Minister that much of what is happening is morally repugnant, but the onus is on us to ensure that the system works effectively in relation to tax evasion and avoidance, and other matters, so that we serve the community that elected us well and so that HMRC does its basic job of collecting taxes. That means giving it sufficient staff and the right resources, so that they can do the job.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Mark Field and John McDonnell

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

There was a worrying consequence of one of those cases—I think Winston got eaten, as a form of capital punishment introduced as a result of what happened. However, a range of protests have taken place in Parliament square unhindered by Brian Haw and the other protestors. If there were a specific harm caused, and one protestor or group of protestors was preventing others from protesting, we should legislate on that specifically rather than have the blanket approach in the Bill.

The amendments are fairly extensive and are in three basic batches. The first begins with amendment 162, and suggests scrapping the previous scheme and preventing the new scheme from being introduced. The proposal is based on the commitments that both coalition parties made before the election, and the argument is the same: this Government’s proposals disproportionately target protests and protesters, just as the previous Government’s measures did. The amendments would remove the powers to harass peaceful protesters. It is very straightforward: there is enough legislation on the books already to prevent protests in Parliament square that we feel impede the operation of Parliament or in any way cause disorder. In effect, the amendments would remove the restriction on protests in Parliament square overall.

The second of three batches of amendments begins with amendment 171. They propose a reasonable, and a more appropriate and proportionate, alternative. Basically, amendment 171 would introduce an injunction process, whereby people concerned about prohibited activity within the square could apply to the High Court for an injunction. It defines “prohibited activity” not as tents or the use of loudhailers, but specifically as something that

“may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or…where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act that they have a right not to do.”

Existing public order legislation can already deal with security concerns and violence within the square, but if hon. Members want specific powers, the amendment would give people the opportunity to seek an injunction, which would be imposed by the High Court if it reasonably believed that a prohibited activity or serious disorder was being planned or had taken place. Basically, that would introduce due process into the act of preventing people from undertaking protests within the square when that could result in public harm. The harm on the basis of which someone’s human rights can be restrained and constrained is thereby defined. Amendment 174 would in addition reduce the overall penalty to level 3, which attracts a £1,000 penalty, rather than the current £5,000 penalty.

Our next batch of amendments—the batch of last resort—addresses who will implement the legislation. As I said, at the moment, the existing legislation and the Bill put an unmanageable burden on police officers. At the same time, the Bill introduces local authority officers into what could be very difficult and dangerous waters.

I propose that if a police officer is to take such decisions, it should be a senior police officer rather than a constable. We should remember that the decision will be to direct someone that they cannot protest in a certain way, and that they must give over their loudhailers, sleeping equipment or whatever. The officer will also have the ability to use force to take such things and arrest people, which is an extensive power that could cause unnecessary conflict. That should be done by a senior officer.

Amendment 185 would mean that if an officer is to arrest someone, that officer should at least be a police constable—I do not believe that that should be the role of a local authority officer. The Bill introduces a vulnerability to local authority officers, who are not trained to undertake such work, and who are not capable of exercising the judgment that police officers exercise. Police officers are trained to make judgments instantaneously on whether someone is committing an offence, and on balancing human rights and an individual’s behaviour. A series of linked amendments would mean that a court could prohibit someone for only seven days rather than 90, although I can understand why certain Labour Whips do not want that for some of us.

As I said, amendment 174, which is in this batch, seeks to reduce the scale of the fine from £5,000 to £1,000—from level 5 to level 3. It is a matter of judgment, but I feel that the fine of £5,000 is so heavy that it will intimidate anyone seeking to organise a protest on the square or even thinking of applying for a licence, because something could go wrong and they would then be held liable. Rather than risk people thinking twice and therefore not coming along to protest legitimately, we should err on the side of caution before deterring people from such activity.

The amendments would define the powers on court conviction much more clearly to avoid the individual summary offence. They also address issues involving the forfeiture of any items. There is a danger that, under the wide and vague power given to police officers at the moment, police officers can take goods from people in a summary way without there being recourse to the courts.

I have rattled through the amendments, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. [Interruption.] Well, I think they do. Certainly, members of the Committee will want to speak. However, the issue before us sets a test for individual Governments. It relates not only to major issues, but to smaller ones such as this. It is a test of whether Governments are, as they say they are, truly liberal and committed to human rights, and whether they really want to be reforming Governments. This might seem like a minor issue for the House to be addressing—I do not think that we should be wasting our time, and we should not be introducing this sort of legislation—but it is an important test on which the Government will be judged.

In opposition, the Conservative party agreed that this legislation was outrageous and illiberal, and it promised before the election that it would scrap it and support the right of peaceful protest, which I supported as well. Now the Government have introduced proposals that vary very little from the existing regime. In fact, they will become equally contradictory. As a result of this small matter, I believe judgments will be made on the illiberality of the coalition Government, and on their competence too. If this measure is implemented, and individual officers seek to enforce it, it will produce conflict. It will demonstrate an illiberality of mind and the oppressive nature of the Government’s approach.

On that basis, it would be wrong to legislate in this way. I appeal to the traditions not only of my own side but of the Liberals in respect of the right to protest and to freedom of speech, and those of the Conservative party in respect of individualism. I think Disraeli said that man is great when he is motivated by his passions. Those people out there are motivated by a passion for peace and against war. We should not do anything to impede the expression of their views, but that is what this legislation does, and that is why I urge the Government either to withdraw the provisions or support at least elements of my amendments.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Unlike the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and, I suspect, every other Member in the House at the moment—I did not have the privilege of being on the Bill Committee. As he will appreciate, however, Parliament square stands in my constituency.

I have quite a lot of sympathy with a number of the things the hon. Gentleman said in speaking to his amendments. Above all, there is nothing worse than the sheer powerlessness of this place in the public’s eye. He was right about the indeterminate number of hours spent on this small matter over the past 10 years. We need only consider the incidents and terrible disturbances last weekend on Piccadilly circus and Oxford street. There is a sense of powerlessness. Many constituents—they would not necessarily blame the police, and neither would I—think, “These events are allowed to go ahead, yet we have absolutely no say in the matter.”

In many ways, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the sense in which Parliament is weak and almost entirely marginalised when such debates take place. A decision can be taken by Executive order to go to war and then be rubber-stamped 48 hours later in a parliamentary debate. I know that he and I take very different views about the rightness of what has happened, but I would agree with him in this regard: we spend endless hours debating such matters to no avail and end up with unworkable legislation. We have had some unworkable legislation in the past, so I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s fears that we might be going down that route again.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Can the hon. Gentleman update us and clarify whether it is true that the local authority and the Mayor have now secured sufficient legal judgments in the courts to remove the peace camp in due course anyway?

[Mr Field]

I understand that that will be “in due course”, and there is of course an important event on 29 April, which is in everyone’s minds when it comes to trying to clear the square, which is very much a focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the Evening Standard discovers a secondary market for the tents that are already erected, let alone any new ones that go up.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Field]

I suspect I will never get off this point.

[John McDonnell]

But it is a valid point, which was also addressed in Committee. We get ourselves into a ludicrous position in which someone turning up with a sleeping bag to wait for the wedding—as the Prime Minister did, when, as he told us, he turned up with his sleeping bag for a previous royal wedding—could be arrested under the legislation in the same way.

[Mr Field]

Ad absurdum, the hon. Gentleman’s argument is right. However, that is also precisely the distinction that we have to face: the distinction between a one-off arrangement for the one, exciting night before a major public event, and having a permanent encampment around Parliament square. It is to the latter that most sensible people—not those only in this House, but many millions of our constituents—would turn their minds. It is not acceptable that a UNESCO world heritage site—Parliament square, the parliamentary buildings and Westminster abbey—is blighted by having a large permanent encampment. That is an issue, in part, of aesthetics. However, millions of tourists come to Parliament and they must be dismayed by what they see, week after week, month after month. It cannot make much sense for us to allow it to continue.

To an extent, I had sympathy with elements of what the erstwhile Government were trying to do, such as their idea of having a licensed system covering demonstrations when major debates were taking place. In my view, it would have been entirely legitimate, for example, on the day we had our debate on Libya, for those who felt strongly about the issue, on either side, to have held a large, peaceful demonstration. But the notion that encampments can exist day after day, week after week, is another matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tamil encampment that was in Parliament square in the autumn of 2009, which reached a ludicrous stage. There was a lot of noise and disturbance. There were old-fashioned local authority health and safety issues, as well as the whole question of toilet provision, and the area became something of a health hazard as the Tamil group camped there for six weeks before finally leaving.

Many of our constituents are bemused by our sheer powerlessness, and by the fact that we have not been able to get our act together to get the necessary workable legislation in place to ensure that we can achieve our goal.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

One of the reasons that the previous Administration were on such a sticky wicket in regard to the legislation was that it simply did not work. This provision seeks to create a legal regime within which legitimate demonstrations can take place and be adequately controlled in accordance with the UNESCO status of Parliament square.

[John McDonnell]

That’s what the last lot said.

[Mr Field]

Indeed, one has heard those words before. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is a relative newcomer to the House, but I fear that we have been having this debate for many years. As we all know, the workability, or otherwise, of legislation often does not become apparent until well after an Act has been placed on the statute book.

It is essential that we do our best, and we must protect the right to protest. I appreciate that Parliament square is a special place for protest, and I would be very loth to see the perhaps spurious ground of security being used to prevent legitimate, high-profile protest on days when debates were taking place in the House of Commons on high-profile legislation. This encampment, however, does disturb some local residents. That certainly happened when the Tamils were here in great numbers in 2009, and many residents wrote to me to say that their sleep was being disturbed.

We need to strike a balance. Either we have to solve this problem or we have to move on, because there is now a sense that we are powerless. Parliament and all the authorities are becoming a laughing stock. This should be a tremendous site for millions of tourists to visit from across the globe. Parliament is the most iconic building in the United Kingdom, and having that eyesore here is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the very valid comments that have been made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I also hope that we will move hastily towards getting a workable provision on to the statute book to ensure that that eyesore becomes a thing of the past.