Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the National Audit Office published its report on the future of acute hospitals, which showed that 181 of the 240 acute hospital trusts have been in deficit since six months into this financial year. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor unveiled extra money for NHS England, but we now know that this is likely to be swallowed up by those deficits. Given that sleight of hand by the Chancellor, will the Leader of the House ensure that either the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Health comes to the House to explain how the Government are going to ensure that our hospitals do not close?
Chris Grayling
The reason that health service finances are under pressure is that the health service is doing more today than it has ever done before. It is treating more patients, employing more people and providing more treatment options. It is right and proper that we as a Government should continue to try to do everything we can, which is why we have provided more money for the national health service and will continue to do so. The Health Secretary will be here to answer questions on the day we return, and the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to raise her concerns again then. We take these issues very seriously, but it is because the NHS is doing more that it is facing pressures.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have already heard this morning of concerns about broadband, and those concerns are shared by all parties in all parts of the UK. The Leader of the House has already indicated that there is Government time available on 25 June. There are new Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Business, Innovation and Skills. Is this not a perfect opportunity for the Leader of the House to allocate time for Members to discuss broadband services in the UK?
Chris Grayling
I know that the issue is a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House and in different kinds of constituencies. Of course, we will from next week have opportunities to debate matters of general concern on those days allocated for them, and I expect that subject to make an early appearance on that list.
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Hillier Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Whittingdale
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election. I know that in his capacity as a former technology editor he brings a particular expertise to our debates on this subject. He is absolutely right that there will be some cases where, for the time being, it will not be possible to extend superfast broadband. I hope that we will eventually be able to do so, but in the meantime I entirely agree with him that it is important that people should be aware of that position. We are introducing a seven-digit postcode checker, which is now on the gov.uk website, so that people can be made aware of that position.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that 97% of UK homes and businesses already have access to 2 megabit per second broadband, up from less than 90% in 2010. We hope that all homes will have it by the end of 2015.
Meg Hillier
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. I had hoped that he and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills would form a dream team to tackle the nightmare of broadband coverage in this country, including in areas such as mine in Shoreditch. Can the Minister explain why millions of pounds of public money has gone in and yet, as we have heard from other hon. Members today, there is still a serious problem across the UK with what should be a 21st century utility?
Mr Vaizey
I will suppress my personal hurt that the hon. Lady would prefer to deal with the Secretary of State rather than with me, although we have dealt with her issues in Shoreditch over many months. I am pleased, for example, that in her constituency many businesses are taking advantage of broadband vouchers, that Virgin Media is rolling out broadband and that BT is investing in broadband. Across the country, more than 2.5 million homes are covered by our very successful programme.
Digital Democracy
Meg Hillier Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I have a statement to make on behalf of Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. They have agreed, for the purposes of this debate only, that the public will be allowed to use electronic devices in the Public Gallery, provided that they do so silently and in a way that does not disrupt proceedings. That means that the same rules apply as apply to Members—so we will have no selfie sticks, or the rules of the Louvre museum will be applied. However, it is important that we do this properly. You are pathfinders this morning. You are trailblazers in this Parliament allowing the public to interrelate in the way that has been described: discreetly, with electronic devices.
I call Meg Hillier on behalf of the Speaker’s Digital Democracy Commission to open the debate.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I am delighted to have secured this debate about the future of Parliament, because that is no less than what we were discussing for a year as a commission. As you have outlined, Mr Havard, this is a first for Parliament: the public in the Gallery are allowed to bring in mobile devices. We are encouraging them to tweet, text and share today’s proceedings with the wider public. The fact that that is a breakthrough shows how far behind Parliament is compared with the world outside.
Thomas Friedman said that in 2004
“Facebook didn’t exist, Twitter was still a sound, the cloud was still in the sky…LinkedIn was a prison”
and Skype was a spelling mistake. That does not describe the world that we all operate in today. If we look at the way in which Parliament works, we are some way behind that. The rate of technological change is rapid. We cannot control that, and when Mr Speaker set up the Digital Democracy Commission, he recognised that we need to embrace that. The commission has backed his view and agreed that we need to empower those who want to use digital resources to open up our democracy.
Mr Speaker set up the Digital Democracy Commission in January 2014. Made up of eight commissioners, including myself and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) as the two Members of Parliament on the commission, the Speaker was concerned that the world outside Parliament was leaving Parliament behind. He is absolutely right. Only last week, I was surprised to receive a phone call from Radio 4, who were keen to talk to me about a revolutionary change in Parliament: a new camera angle in the Chamber. Although that may be very exciting for the 650 of us who debate there, and for a few others, it is hardly the revolution that is going on in the world outside.
Mr Speaker set up the commission, bringing together a group of experts from technology, representation and the digital world. We heard evidence over that year, our method being very much our message, using online forums as well as traditional in-person evidence sessions. The commissioners were seeking out those who would not normally get involved. Famously, Helen Milner, the chief executive of the Tinder Foundation and one of my fellow commissioners, had a meeting above a chip shop. The chip shop owner even paid her staff to turn up, feeling that they would not come unless they were paid. By the end of that session, Helen, in her true missionary fashion, had persuaded a young man that voting was probably a rather good idea. That goes to show that, when the Digital Democracy Commission labelled our report “Open Up”, it was about opening up not only Parliament, but democracy as a participatory exercise, rather than just using technology to carry on doing what we already do.
In January we published our report—online, of course. A few rare hard copies are available—I am sure that they will be collectors’ items in future—but again, our method was our message. We made five headline recommendations. First, by 2020, the House should ensure that everyone can understand what it does. Secondly, by 2020, the House of Commons should be fully interactive and digital. Thirdly, the newly elected House of Commons, after the upcoming general election, should immediately create a new forum for public participation in the debating function of the House of Commons. Fourthly, in 2020, secure online voting should be an option for all voters. Finally, by next year—2016—all published information and broadcast footage should be freely available in formats suitable for reuse, and Hansard should be available as open data by the end of this year.
Those were our headlines, and I shall touch on two briefly before going into some in more detail. We talked about online voting, which was the headline that many picked up on, because we were all clear that that was the direction of travel. However, we were not set up to investigate in detail the issues of security and the mechanisms for delivering that, although we hope that the Electoral Commission and others will take that on. The hon. Member for Harlow will talk more about that recommendation.
We also called for an experiment, post the next general election, for what has been dubbed a “cyber Chamber”: a third chamber in Parliament allowing the public to debate an issue ahead of MPs having that discussion. As all MPs will have found at different times, often our debates can be best informed by an individual expert in our constituencies who finds us, approaches us and talks to us about an issue. We hope that the cyber Chamber will develop that expert contribution—by “expert”, I do not mean experts with letters after their name. Sometimes members of the public can be more expert about an issue that they have experienced than Members of Parliament. Again, the hon. Gentleman will speak more about that recommendation.
To turn to the rest of the report, overall, we see this as a road map to improve the way in which MPs engage with the public and to allow the public to better engage with Parliament. Within Parliament, we hope that the new director of the parliamentary digital service, Rob Greig, who joined only yesterday, will use the road map as his job description, as he continues the task of modernising Parliament in a digital way. We also adopted the declaration on parliamentary openness. I will not read that out for the record, but it basically talks about making parliamentary information more transparent and providing easier access to the public, which is the very reason why the commission was established.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the role of the incoming head of our parliamentary information services. That has to be looked at against the background of first, what happened in the past, and secondly, the difficulties relating to this building. Some 20 years ago, when we put the current network into the House, some of us were arguing that blown fibre would have been the answer. Doing the current cabling was a nightmare, because of the state of the building, the asbestos and so on. If we are to do this seriously, Parliament has to resource it, and the public have to understand that it has to be resourced.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a real mission here, but there is a mission and a will. One of the pleasures of being on the commission was engaging very much with the staff of the House of Commons, who share the desire of Members to modernise the way in which this place works. There are physical challenges in this building, and we need do no more than look at the images of those challenges in the Michael Cockerell documentary. That issue was not the core focus of the commission, but it is fair to say that fellow commissioners who were not used to the workings of Parliament were surprised at some of the physical challenges that we face in this building.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on representing us all so ably on the commission. I also congratulate Mr Speaker on setting up the commission in the first place. It was not an easy thing to do. This is not necessarily the most radical and reforming place that one will ever come across, so we are grateful for that. Does my hon. Friend take great heart from the fact that many things covered in her report and in the Speaker’s commission mirror the work that we have been doing in the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, particularly on the digital aspects and getting young people, especially, to vote online? She is not on her own, and one day, all this will come to pass.
Meg Hillier
I agree with my hon. Friend that we hope this will all come to pass, and I commend him and his Committee for trailblazing on this issue. Other areas of the House have been looking at the issue. However, it is important that we use the launch pad of the new Parliament, after the general election, to say that this should be business as usual for Parliament. We can no longer debate whether to do it, but should instead debate how to encourage it. It has been a challenge for some colleagues, who worry about the work load that digital engagement can create, but the commission felt very strongly about it. In fact, one commissioner proposed that all hon. Members had a digital manifesto. I would recommend that as an idea, but we did not put it in our recommendations for all 650 MPs. The feeling was that we could not control how that would work. However, it is important that we understand that, although we would knock on a door and hear people’s points of view, that is not the modern method for many young people. In fact, smartphone usage among the under-24s is now more than 80%. It is very important that we allow similar engagement through a digital method.
The resourcing issue is touched on in the report. There was a feeling in the commission that this needed to be resourced effectively. We were not drawn on figures and numbers, but for MPs to do their job properly and actively listen to people through digital means, we need to ensure that we have the resources to do that.
Andrew Miller
Some hon. Members complain about the use of electronic media as a modern version of the postcard campaign: people press a button and send a message to their MP without even bothering to read it. There is some legitimate criticism there, but does my hon. Friend agree that, handled properly, creating proper digital engagement with our constituents will put some of those approaches on the back-burner and replace them with real engagement?
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend seems to be able to read my mind, because that is what we were seeking to get across as a commission. We had a number of very interesting discussions, in public and, as a commission, privately, about how we encourage real dialogue. One way to do that—this is an area that I particularly want to cover—is by opening up parliamentary information. Open data are a real resource that could be used to make Parliament much more accessible, so that people out there can follow their issues and lobby effectively their MPs and, over time, the Government on them.
Let me use the example of something that has over time been an issue in my constituency—dangerous dogs. That issue has upset and worried a number of my constituents, but currently, if a member of the public wanted to find out where it was being discussed in Parliament, what laws had been passed and which Members of Parliament were actively interested in the subject, it would take a lot of digging through clunky information to try to find that out. No wonder the lobbying companies become intermediaries between the people and this place. That is because it is a full-time job to find out something as simple as what Parliament is doing to tackle dangerous dogs.
However, if we had open data, which is what we are seeking—the House of Commons is certainly doing this and we are pretty sure that the Lords will follow swiftly—that would allow tech experts, such as the many in Shoreditch in my constituency, to develop, for example, an app that meant that someone could look up a topic that mattered to them and follow through exactly where and when that was being discussed. It would possibly flag things up—this would rely on Government being co-operative about publishing an agenda, which was beyond our reach—and allow influence at the right time. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that we heard was from Clerks of this House, who said that at the point at which legislation is published, it is practically too late to make significant changes. Governments, in our system, determine legislation. We know from debates in this Chamber and from the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee that debates that happen early on and in which hon. Members can show an interest from their constituencies can and do lead to changes in the law over time, but very often, members of the public write to us just before a vote and do not get the chance really to influence the way we do our business.
Opening up data is just one example. I am sure that we can all think of examples from our own constituencies of major geopolitical decisions on which we might want to have an influence. I say to hon. Members who are sceptical about digital engagement that we might find that we enhance the work that we do by being able to listen to people with strong views, passions, interest and expertise in advance of delivering our thoughts on issues. We would be better informed as Members of Parliament about subjects that matter to our constituents. However, unless they know what is going on in this place, that will not be possible, and it is opaque.
We wanted to see Hansard, for example, in a proper open-data format. Staff in my own office use TheyWorkForYou, which I commend as a website because its algorithms, through its screen scraping—a very old-fashioned approach—give easier access to data about my voting record than I have if I try to look it up in Hansard. We wanted to see that change and we are delighted that the House of Commons is already moving along those lines. We set stiff targets for this year and next year to ensure that things happen as quickly as possible.
Very shortly, we will be able to embed digital clips of what is happening in the House of Commons in tweets, on our websites and so on. That kind of openness is really important. This is the people’s Parliament. That is what Mr Speaker firmly believes, and that is why he set up the Digital Democracy Commission—to ensure that Parliament was reaching out to the people and opening up to the people. We as MPs therefore have a duty to ensure that we are listening to the people.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Perhaps the hon. Lady could expand a little on what the commission proposed on open data, because I think that a lot of the data that she has referred to are available, albeit not very easy to find. Has she identified how that would work, in terms of a member of the public being able to find out about dangerous dogs, and has she been able to make any assessment of what the cost would be of pulling all that information together in one place for the public to access it easily?
Meg Hillier
I had the pleasure of attending with the hon. Member for Harlow an international conference at which we saw some very technical presentations about exact formats. I know that the House of Commons is embracing that approach. I am not the best technical expert to explain which exact format might be used, but perhaps I should lay out the current approach for the record. Websites such as TheyWorkForYou will screen scrape. They will collect data almost in a manual way from a website and then collate it, with an algorithm picking up things. That will never be perfect. That website does a good job, but it would acknowledge its own imperfections. However, if data are produced in a fully open way, in an open format, then algorithms and other mechanisms can be put in place so that information can be collected in a more intelligent and useful way for a member of the public. In effect, the intermediary stops being the lobby group and becomes the technology, but that intermediary between what is going on in this place and what the public want is much faster, sharper and snappier. Equally, it should also work the other way.
One challenge that hon. Members raised with me and, no doubt, with the hon. Member for Harlow while we were on the commission was this: “Won’t there be too many different platforms for us to use?” We will all have to address that challenge. I, for example, will be crowdsourcing which other social media platform I should be using to engage with my constituents. I hope that, through that mechanism, I will gain an idea of which one is most useful to them, rather than me alighting on a system, a social media platform, that is good for me but is not actually used by many of my constituents. It might make my life easier in some ways if I did not get interaction, but that is not what I am here for. I am here to represent my constituents, as we all are. It is important that that technological approach is taken, and certainly the House of Commons is on that track. The new head of digital has just arrived to take it forward. That that post has been created is a sign of the vision for where the House of Commons needs and wants to go.
As well as the digital side, we touched on the very big issues around improving public understanding of politics and Parliament. I think I have touched on that in what I have said, but one issue is about reducing jargon and making parliamentary language more accessible. This is an extraordinary situation. There is a member of staff in this building, working for an hon. Member, who is doing a major piece of research about the availability of “Erskine May”. Those of us in this place will know about “Erskine May”, but I would hazard a guess that most of us in the Chamber today have not seen or touched a physical copy of “Erskine May”. That is because there are very arcane rules about who has access to it and who owns it. There is a real desire— Mr Speaker has been leading the charge on this—to get it made available online, so that anyone out there who needs to look up any of the terms that we use can do that. That may sound a small step, but it is amazing that the rules of this place are held in bound hard copy, accessible to only a handful of experts. That does not help to create an open Parliament, which is one of the reasons why we wanted that to change.
We wanted to ensure that we are reaching out to under-represented groups. We touched on how to ensure that we do not leave behind those who are digitally excluded, because it is not our intention to do so. Just as with Government services that are going online, we need to be mindful of those who are unable to use that process. We see digital as enhancing and improving what we do, rather than replacing human interaction. We want to expand that human interaction to digital methods.
We wanted to look at elections and voting. A key issue internally is how we vote in Parliament. We had some interesting discussions about whether Members of Parliament should vote remotely online. The two Members of Parliament on the commission felt strongly that there was a big benefit to being in the Lobbies and being able to tackle Ministers such as the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons directly, face to face. If we lost that lobbying opportunity, we would feel that we had lost a large part of what we come to this place to do on behalf of our constituents.
The commission concluded that the current voting system is slow, clunky and manual. The House of Lords has been experimenting with using iPads to record voting. One of the benefits of recording voting digitally is that the results of a vote can be available immediately to the public and the media, whereas currently there is a time lag, because of the paper sheets that we use. I should explain for the benefit of those who are not Members of the House that as we troop through the Lobbies, there are three Clerks sitting in each Lobby with large sheets of paper and black marker pens marking off our names one by one as we go through. In the modern world, it is extraordinary that we still vote in such a way. We all have smart parliamentary passes, and it would not be difficult to install technology that allowed us to swipe through. That would enable the result to be relayed to the public quickly, so we could be held immediately to account for the way in which we had voted. I think that that makes great sense and so did the commission, so that is one of our recommendations.
We set quite stringent time targets. As the Speaker acknowledged, it would be generous to say that the House of Commons is living in the early 20th century; we are way behind in many respects. We wanted to force a drive for change and make Parliament and the House of Commons much more open and accessible. The report provides the foundations, but ultimately the public will make it happen. It requires people to be engaged and interested. When we asked the public which of the recommendations they wanted to see implemented quickly, the results were fairly evenly spread. Interestingly, online voting just pipped the others to the post as the favoured option for slightly more than 20% of those who responded to our survey.
We need tech developers to take the open data that will be available and turn it into something that will enable us to carry out our roles more effectively and enable the public to engage with us. When I am knocking on doors in Hackney on a weekend, I can talk to somebody in their kitchen, and I want to have that sort of interaction with everybody. None of us can reach everyone on the doorstep.
I want those who are passionate about an issue to be able to engage more effectively. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we get a lot of letters. They often arrive very late in the day, just as we are about to start a hearing or sometimes after a hearing. It is a great sadness to me that we have not got the capacity to absorb that information at a more appropriate stage. With the right digital support, those who are passionate will be able to get involved more effectively.
Many people are keen to get involved. Evidence from a survey carried out by Cambridge university showed that 46% of people would like to get involved if they could, but less than 10% are currently engaged with Parliament. Of course, there is a large gap between those who say they will get involved and those who actually do, but even if half of them did so, there would be a massive increase in the number of people getting involved in what we do. That would ensure that Parliament is the preserve not only of those of us who are elected, but of those who want to influence what we do.
As Members of Parliament, we need to be bold and embrace the change. We need to use social media and the opening up of Parliament as an opportunity to listen better to our constituents, not simply to broadcast what we do. If we embrace the Digital Democracy Commission report, proselytise and tell new Members about it, we will make ourselves more accountable and more relevant, and we will improve the work that we do in the House of Commons. That work is, ultimately, representing the best interests of the public and listening to their views.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Halfon, I would just like to say that I have a copy of “Erskine May” here. I am not sure whether it is meant to be a weapons system that I can throw at you if you are disorderly. It looks as though it has never been opened, although I can see that it has been, because there are markers at the page dealing with the maintenance of order during a debate—I think that that is probably what it is intended for—and at a page about disorder and the methods of curtailing debate. Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means seem to give me the novelty or unusual discussions to chair. I want to take the opportunity to say that Mr Speaker is in the Gallery, which demonstrates his commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny and to any methodologies that can help with that process, as well as his commitment to engagement.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I am particularly interested in the report. Back in 1992, when I was first elected to this place, I complained to the powers that be in the building about the inadequacies of my office. I said that I wanted another telephone line, and the person I spoke to said, “You can’t have another telephone line; you’re only entitled to two.” I said, “Well, I’m a bit old-fashioned. I need a third one.” “Why does that mean you need a third one?” I said, “I need one for voice, one for my old-fashioned fax machine and one for the computer.” The voice on the other end of the phone said, “Do computers use telephones?”
We have come rather a long way since then. That was one of the early mistakes of my career, because when I complained about it to the wonderful Don Dixon, now in the other place, he said, “Ah, son, you’re exactly the person we want. You’re on the Information Committee.” Never volunteer.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) referred to Enigma at the beginning and end of his speech. I had the great pleasure a few weeks ago of sending a message using an Enigma machine, at an event with 200 or 300 young female students. It was an extraordinary opportunity and incredibly thrilling, and it was made even more so by the fact that one of the women from Bletchley Park participated in the event. Her speech was far more enjoyable than mine. The hon. Gentleman is right to reflect back on that technology, but we must remember that that was 1935 technology. Here we are in 2015, talking about bringing this place into the current century.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) discussed how modern systems can more effectively gather information about us and individual subjects and make them available in accessible form. That is achievable, and it is a goal that we ought to set ourselves, but there are significant obstacles, because we start from an environment that is not conducive. By the way, we should not simply digitise everything here. First, we need a root-and-branch examination of what needs digitising and how we should do it.
To give a current example, just recently the Government produced a smart system—to be fair, it could have been done 10 years ago, but this Government drove it through—whereby we no longer need a physical tax disc on our vehicles. They did so by recognising that modern number plate recognition can easily tie in with insurance records, so that we know that a vehicle is insured. That is a very good idea; it was just about digitising the process.
However, the Government have wasted some public money in making that change. Those of us who represent areas with significant rural hinterlands will know that there are rather a lot of tractors on the road. For a considerable number of years tractors have been zero-rated for tax, and now we have a system that still requires farmers to go through all the bureaucratic nonsense of applying for a non-existent tax disc, wasting a huge amount of time in the digital infrastructure of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for absolutely zero purpose.
As that example illustrates, we need a root-and-branch examination of why we do things in such a way. The hon. Member for Harlow referred to the language of this place; goodness me, he is absolutely right. It infuriates me what arcane language we use. “Erskine May” is not exactly a comfortable bedtime read; you are smiling, Mr Havard, because you have just had a glance at it. It is a horrendous document that is impossible to read. We first need a root-and-branch examination of the business process so we do not fall into the same trap as the DVLA and waste resource.
Secondly, we must examine the rules that govern us, such as those on voting, and the philosophy behind them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch referred to that, as did the hon. Member for Harlow. It seems to me that philosophically, we should stick to the physical voting principle that we must be here in the building. The idea of saying, “Well, I’m not going to bother coming down from Ellesmere Port this week; I’m going to sit in my garden and vote digitally on my iPad” is not exactly engaging. The person must be physically present, but using intelligent systems to swipe through a vote would be a positive step. I am thinking of a system akin to the one used in the US Congress.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is right; not only the US Congress but many countries use digital approaches to voting. One of our recommendations, though, involved the arcane but useful process of nodding through, by which people who are on the premises but unwell or physically unable to go through the Lobby for whatever reason can be verified and nodded through by a Whip. We recommended that the handful of people so affected at any time might vote remotely online, without having to be physically nodded through.
Andrew Miller
That is a good point, and we need to examine in parallel whether we would take the same view if, for example, a Select Committee were away from the Palace on official business. That needs exploring. I am not drawing any conclusions; I am saying simply that we need to examine those rules and get the principles right before we embark on phase 2, which will involve bringing the technology into the 21st century.
We should insist, following this debate, that part of the necessary reconstruction of this building involves installing the most advanced fibre networks. We need the tools to do the job properly. My Select Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, piloted the use of iPads in our work, and I must say that although there was a certain amount of resistance from some of my colleagues, it has massively changed for the better how we do things. It has improved the efficiency of our work, and we do not fell a forest by producing ridiculous amounts of paper every time we have a meeting. We need to drive forward with such technologies, but the infrastructure of the House must be considered.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, we must also explore the available technologies to ensure that we produce data in a form that is easy for us and members of the public to access. Frankly, I see no boundary between our needs and those of members of the public. There is very little currently on the intranet that should not be immediately available on the internet; the opening times of the coffee shop might be a different matter, but most of that material ought to be instantly available.
Finally, I come on to voting systems. I have been looking at them for some time, because there have been flaws in the existing system. I have seen with my own eyes the effects of people manipulating the current system. Way back in the 1970s, when I lived in Portsmouth, I saw mathematical evidence that in a row of houses that had all been bought up for compulsory purchase, every one of the tenants had cast their vote. If the result of that election had gone against my political views, I am sure that there would have been an election petition about that situation, because we knew that the landlord had manipulated that block of votes. So there are fiddles in the existing system that we need to clamp down on—the hon. Member for Harlow is absolutely right about that.
On the other hand, I had a constituent who complained to me on one occasion, “You know why we vote with pencil?” I said, “Actually, I don’t know why we vote with pencil.” He said, “Ah! It’s so they can rub out the results and produce the results they want.” I said, “Well, that’s a bit interesting, because they’ve produced a result that led to my being elected. So I am clearly part of the establishment now.” There are people who do not trust the existing system, although those are minority concerns.
However, when it comes to electronic systems, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The modern security systems that can be built in will never remove 100% the possibility of somebody standing over someone else at a computer and saying, “I’ll beat you if you don’t give me your password,” in the same way that they cannot solve potential abuse in banking systems. Nevertheless, as we have said, there are corrupt practices in the existing manual system, so we must work with security specialists to minimise those risks. In some banking systems, there is such personalised information that only the specified individual could enter the required data. We all have accounts with systems like that. Yes, they can be abused, but they also help to minimise abuse.
We are now at a stage where we ought to contemplate a number of possible moves. One is to properly pilot a modern system, and not the systems that were adopted a few years ago. A number of constituencies could be chosen as pilot areas to develop such a system, and we could examine anomalies in the voting system compared with other constituencies that we benchmark against.
Another possible move might simply be to use a model that is used in some countries whereby the voting system is not electronic but the counting process is automatic and done instantly. Today, the idea of all those town hall folk sitting around in the early hours of the morning manually going through our voting papers is an absurdity in the extreme. There is absolutely no reason why most of our counts could not be declared very shortly after the ballot boxes come in, even within the existing system. I have no idea what the cost of such an automatic counting system to local authorities would be, but I would guess that it would have an extraordinarily large number of noughts on the end of it. Nevertheless, even just taking a gentle step on the way towards digitising the system could be beneficial.
We ought to welcome the commission’s report and focus on the structure and rule changes that we need to adopt in this place, so that we do not end up digitising things just for the sake of it. Digitisation must have a purpose that focuses on our needs and those of the general public simultaneously. We ought to explore all the issues around voting systems.
In what is possibly one of my last speeches in this place before I step down as an MP in a few days’ time, I wish the commission’s successors in the next Parliament every success in getting some of these changes driven through, to turn this place into a Parliament that can engage more effectively with the people we seek to represent.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I will be very brief. I had not intended to make a speech today, but I was prompted to do so by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), as is often the case, but in a very positive way. He talked about Magna Carta, which leads me immediately to mentally flip to a written constitution.
In a sense, we have seen the future and it works—the remarkable report produced by the Speaker’s commission. I never miss a chance to boast about the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and I hope that we have shown, in a small way, how this could happen as a regular practice.
I have two examples in mind. We have done a report on voter engagement, why people are disengaging and what we can do about it. There are lots of reasons for that: the media; MPs’ behaviour; registration; and not being able to vote easily, for example. We were determined to consult as many people as possible. We thought that engagement of voters would be very important.
I think we received what was, at the time, a world record of responses: we received some 16,000 responses, in one form or another. We used every possible type of social media. Also, and this is an interesting facet of what the commission is talking about, we used other organisations. This does not have to be almost nationalised by Parliament, as it were. Bite the Ballot, the Hansard Society and the British Youth Council all got involved and did their own online survey of all their members. The results then came back to us and were fed into our final report. Our report was very influenced by the majorities that stacked up, particularly on online voting.
In addition, we have produced a door-stopper of a report on a written constitution, which gives all the possible options. We have consulted widely on that. I think that there were some 6,000 responses to that. We have now distilled that into a 10-pager—what one might call a “mini-Magna”—a UK written constitution that tells us what we have now, written down for the first time ever, with some possible options for change on the margins.
Individuals can use that resource online. There is now a further consultation, until the end of the year, until we have had an election and until the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta has passed, and in the run-up to what may well be a constitutional convention. We have that resource open online, so that people can say what their view is on the distillation of a written constitution.
Rather than people saying that traditionally constitutions were written by 30 white guys in a hall in Philadelphia, we would like to have many millions of founding fathers and mothers, who will make their contribution towards what a final constitution might look like. Of course, that will be available to those who wish to set up a constitutional convention.
I want to make two points quickly. I am not trying to spoil the party, but we absolutely need to take them into account if this is to be successful. First, there is the point I have already mentioned to the hon. Member for Harlow about the information haves and the information have-nots. We need a strategy to consider how we can involve the have-nots. I represent the 10th poorest constituency out of 650; it is rated the 10th poorest by many different measures. It may be that two thirds of my constituents have access to social media and the online world, but I suspect not. I also suspect they are not fluent in it. What we need to do is to take these recommendations further to ensure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, everyone has at least the prospect of being involved, if they are not involved now, so that they can be part of this family.
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a valid point. We discussed digital exclusion a great deal in the commission. It brings to mind a constituent of mine who said, “Remember that my online access is one hour a day at the library.” He is online, but does not have a smartphone in his hand and has no broadband at home. There are layers of digital exclusion, even for those who are able to use the technology.
Mr Allen
Indeed. Dare I mention hon. Members who, like me, do not have the staff available at a particular time or who do not have relatives to help them? I have a young daughter to help me through difficulties when things seem to go wrong. I think many of us are excluded by our own incompetence, more than anything else.
Technology is often neutral. We need to use technology to give us a broader-based democracy and to involve more people. We should never, ever think it is a panacea. The problems with this place are about its relationship with the Executive and its inability to stand as an independent institution separate from the Executive. We must always consider how technology can help us as parliamentarians to build a stronger Parliament. That is what the Speaker’s commission has done. Once again, I congratulate my two colleagues on representing all of us in the House so effectively. More power to your elbow.
Meg Hillier
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, as well as others who were unable to attend but are nevertheless very interested in the work of the Speaker’s Digital Democracy Commission. I also thank many others who contributed to the commission’s deliberations. I thank the commissioners, who gave up their time freely to make the report what it is, and, of course, Mr Speaker, who had the initial vision and chose a mechanism that was not over-bureaucratic to ensure that we could start this century, rather than wait for another 20 years. Thanks to him, we have made more progress over the past year than we would have done had we waited for Members to come round to the idea of discussing digital democracy.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made by both Front Benchers. The first was about citizenship education, which put me in mind of a visit I made on behalf of the commission to an international event in Montenegro to look at issues of digital engagement. Montenegro is a very small country that was part of the former Yugoslavia. Because most of the adults there grew up under communism, they were keen to teach their children about democracy. In very good English that in many ways put us to shame, the children explained to the delegates a workshop that they underwent to explain democracy to them and help them to understand it. That underlines the fact that although the commission looked at digital, we were really focused on how to use it to make engagement better. Digital alone is not going to solve the problem, as many have said.
The Deputy Leader of the House spoke about broadband. It is worth drawing the House’s attention to the House of Lords report that was most recently mentioned in this Chamber about a week ago. The House of Lords concluded that broadband should be seen as an essential utility. If we are really to tackle the digital divide, that must be a mission for whoever is in government after the election. I hope that we have cross-party engagement on that.
The Deputy Leader of the House also spoke about engagement, and rightly highlighted some of the progress that has been made, such as opportunities for the public to influence the early discussions on Bills, open evidence sessions and so on. The commission was really clear about one important reason why open data is so important: unless someone knows that such opportunities exist, they cannot get engaged. There is a danger that, because of how the House works, we tend to go to the same few lobby groups and people who have an expressed interest in a subject. We all know that there are silent, quiet experts in our constituencies who, given the opportunity, could really contribute to the work of this place. I cannot do my job without those people, and I am sure that the same can be said for other Members, so it is important that we give them the chance to get involved at the right moment. That is where open data can make a difference.
It would be fair to say that we are on the cusp of a revolution. The report discusses digital engagement, but we know that it is not a panacea. Nevertheless, it is a tool for better accountability for this place and for us individually. We must not let this opportunity pass. Mr Speaker had the vision, and the commission has done its work. We have agreed to meet formally in a year’s time to see how we are doing, and the House of Commons staff are doing their bit, with the new digital leader, who started work only this week, leading the way. Members and the people of this country must now embrace and deliver digital democracy. The report will only live if the public engage. We must say to them, “We open up this place and its proceedings to you. Please contribute. Take on our recommendations and make them live.”
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. Thank you also to those in the Public Gallery. This is the last time that I will chair Westminster Hall, so it is appropriate that we have discussed the future. The Panel of Chairs has been helping with related matters, so I thank those present for helping us to establish a netiquette—I think that is the word—for the future, in which the public can be involved.
The next scheduled debate will not take place, because the hon. Member who secured it is unwell. We wish him well in his recovery.
Select Committee on Governance of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it now.
The Speaker has made clear his personal support for a split between the roles of Clerk and chief executive. In a statement to the House last week he called for the issues of a pre-appointment hearing and a possible split in roles to be examined and the views of Members to be solicited in detail. This debate, and the governance Select Committee and procedure for wider consultation proposed in the motion, are the House’s response to that request by the Speaker.
The proper governance of this House is a matter of enormous public importance. Indeed, it is properly considered a constitutional matter, first, because the British constitution—at least such as it is for the next eight days—relies on the effective functioning of Parliament and, secondly, because this Parliament, and especially the Clerk, act as the final word on procedural matters for a host of further Parliaments across the Commonwealth.
Contrary to popular belief, parliamentary procedure—the rules of the game—is not some pettifogging accretion, or irrelevant decoration, to the business of democratic government; it is the essence of democratic government. This country is governed by laws, laws are made in Parliament, and that Parliament is run according to rules and procedure; without procedure, there could be no government. Indeed, even the role of chief executive has a constitutional dimension, because the capacity of Members to hold the Government to account rests in part on how well they are enabled to function by the House service.
Because of the importance of this subject, the House has regularly sought to assess the quality of its own governance. Three times in the last 30 years it has invited outside experts to lead a process of review: Sir Robin Ibbs, Mr Michael Braithwaite and Sir Kevin Tebbit. No institution is perfect, of course, and some of their criticisms have been stringent. Even so, those reviews have identified a fairly clear, if inconsistent, path of reform and modernisation.
The first such review, the Ibbs review of 1990, painted a pretty damaging picture of administrative incompetence:
“Good financial management systems and the associated control mechanisms did not exist. There was no effective planning, measurement of achievement against requirement, nor assessment of value for money.”
The Braithwaite review in 1999 acknowledged the constitutional significance of a properly resourced and effective Parliament. It recognised that
“the Ibbs team found a situation which was profoundly unsatisfactory in terms of responsibilities, structure and operation.”
It acknowledged that significant progress had been made, but at the same time it made clear that
“full implementation of Ibbs was slow and in some areas did not occur.”
The Tebbit review in 2007 was rather more encouraging. It concluded that:
“The present system is certainly not broken”
and that it was “well regarded overall”. It mentioned
“effective management of delivery and services”,
adding it was
“highly effective in core scrutiny and legislative functions”,
but it made a crucial exception for the management of the estate and works. It recommended steps to improve integration, transparency and clarity of management goals, and to create a stronger finance function and greater professional management across the board.
To those, we may perhaps add one last data point. In the recent debate on the retirement of the last Clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, the House was united not only in acclaiming the merits of Sir Robert himself as Clerk, but in acknowledging the progress the House had made in key areas of management and modernisation. Those include implementing a substantial savings programme without loss of service, the introduction of new IT and a drive towards paperless working, far greater outreach and significant improvement on issues of diversity and equality, as well as a new apprenticeships programme.
The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), aptly summarised the situation by recognising
“a transformation in the management of the House Service, which has moved from what could be described as an era of gifted amateurism to one of thoroughly competent professionalism.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 901.]
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently had the privilege of attending an international conference on modernising parliaments. Although we have made progress in this country, we are behind many other countries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to keep moving forward and to ensure that whoever is appointed is the right person to drive forward change?
Jesse Norman
I regret that I was not at that conference, and I am unfamiliar with the comparisons that might be made, but I absolutely agree that continued progress in modernisation and management is important.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and proposed for debate this evening by the Backbench Business Committee.
After concerns from Members about the recruitment of a new Clerk and chief executive, this motion allows us to move forward swiftly in pursuit of a solution that can unite the House.
Before I address the content of the motion in detail, I would first like to refer briefly to the events that have led us here. I was one of six members of the panel that reached a consensus agreement and suggested a name to the Prime Minister for recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. I think it would be invidious to say the least if I were to go into details of what happened during that process. Suffice it to say that we spent more than 20 hours interviewing a wide range of candidates, judging them against a clear job description, through a fair and robust process. This was the first time that recruitment of the Clerk has been done through a completely open process of the kind we would expect for a senior appointment in any other profession.
Meg Hillier
I welcome the approach of having an open process. Does my hon. Friend regret that the House has used its privilege to name candidates in the recruitment process in the way it has?
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I have deliberately kept my counsel over the past few weeks as a member of the panel, because I thought that was the proper and right thing to do. Although I support the motion and pre-appointment hearings, the way we have got to tonight’s debate shows the House and all of its Members in a very poor light. The often ill-informed and critical comments made by some Members who simply do not know how the process was conducted have been mistaken and misguided. The personal attacks on Mr Speaker have been unwarranted and plain wrong. As somebody who believes fundamentally in the importance of modernising Westminster as part of our endeavour to restore confidence in politics, I think Mr Speaker has made an immense contribution in his work to making us more open, more relevant and more interesting.
The task of the appointment committee was not simply to appoint a Clerk of the House; the post was advertised for both Clerk and chief executive of the House of Commons. The post holder fulfils two functions. That is enshrined in the law, as we have heard, and was recently confirmed by Sir Kevin Tebbit. The Clerks themselves have resisted any change, and the Government too have resisted change in the past. I tell the House that the entire appointment process was extremely thorough, totally professional and very open. Criticisms of the process are entirely unfounded.
Meg Hillier
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if Members believe that this place is a world-class institution, we should seek to advertise internationally for people to run it?
Margaret Hodge
As a member of a committee that promoted an international candidate, of course I agree with that.
We were very mindful of the importance of the procedural duties associated with the job. There are, however, well over 100 people working in the House who are knowledgeable about and familiar with procedure. We were also mindful that the post holder is responsible for spending more than £200 million of taxpayers’ money and employing 1,750 people. This palace lies at the heart of our democracy, yet the way it is run is wasteful and shambolic. We are asking our constituents to bear substantial expenditure cuts and cuts in services, and while they suffer that we are swimming in inefficiencies. Yet, because some Members concern themselves only with what happens in this Chamber, they are willing to downgrade the vital job of ensuring best value from the expenditure of more than £200 million of their constituents’ hard-earned money.
Things are so shambolic that, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, it can take our constituents an hour to get through St Stephen’s to see us. We overspent massively on the building of Portcullis House, yet managing capital projects seems less important than who is sitting in a chair in the Chamber. It is as important to our democracy to run this place well as it is to have somebody in the chair who is knowledgeable about, and experienced in, procedure. However, because we were mindful of the importance of both roles, we held two rounds of interviews. It proved impossible to find a single individual capable of fulfilling both roles, but several of the members of the panel thought that Carol Mills was the only appointable candidate.
Summer Adjournment
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow a number of other hon. Members who have spoken about housing, which is one of the issues that I want to raise. However, unlike the Members for the valleys—the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—who are against houses being built in their areas, and especially in greenfield areas, I would like to see more houses in my borough of Hackney and in London as a whole.
There were 671 new starts in Hackney South and Shoreditch in 2013, which compares with a constituency average in the UK of 185. Clearly, the average is a curious figure because it includes areas where development is more challenging for all sorts of reasons, but it shows that in one small London borough, where there is a will, more homes can be built.
I declare an interest in that I am a landlady. There are a large number of private renters in my constituency. We need housing across the board because London and Hackney continue to grow. The price rises are incredible because of the great shortage. More people rent privately than own housing in my constituency, and the number of people who rent social housing in my borough is greater than the number of people who own and rent privately combined. Hackney is one of the top two councils nationally for building new council homes. Even though that is good for Hackney, it is not enough to keep up with demand.
I have spoken about house prices and rent levels in my constituency before, but I want to remind the House about them. According to Land Registry figures, between March 2013 and March 2014, the percentage increase in house prices was 19%, meaning that an average home now costs £525,000—just over half a million pounds— which is up from £441,000 a year ago. The figures that I have are the median rent levels, but many homes are much more expensive. For a typical three-bedroom home, the rent is just shy of £2,000. For a one-bedroom home, it is £1,235.
We need more housing in Hackney, in London, and probably in other parts of the country too, and we must challenge the Government’s target of setting social rents at 80% of local private rents for new social housing—something that happily Hackney council continues to resist. Those rent levels would be unaffordable for many hard-working people in my constituency, and it would hoover up and scoop out loads of people living in inner-London, and change the nature not just of a borough but of a city where people live cheek by jowl, with incomes mattering less than their contribution to the community.
Part of the solution must be new longer-term tenancies in the private sector. Labour Front Benchers have called for three-year tenancies in the private sector, which I back. For tenants who want such tenancies that is great and should be offered, but it is not enough for families who need far more stability than a three-year tenancy. We must look seriously and cross-party—this will take time to implement—at some sort of financial incentive for private landlords who want to be long-term landlords and not just in it for the money to provide longer-term tenancies for families. It may be that they need a tax incentive or some other economic device to encourage them to provide longer-term tenancies with rent guarantees, as part of the mix of social housing more generally. That certainly needs to be part of the solution in London, to help boost the intermediate sector and make private renting a longer-term choice for those who wish to or have to take that option.
Finally on housing, we need to abolish the bedroom tax. This is a failed policy. It is easy to say, “Oh, it’s fair because people have an extra bedroom”, but when someone has lived in a home for 30 years, or was born there, or has adult children who come and go, to suddenly be charged £14 for that extra bedroom is not fair or reasonable. Often, people’s household circumstances change periodically. I have many constituents who have fallen out of work through no fault of their own and are looking for work, but in that period they have to pay the extra out of their benefits. They do not want to leave because they are optimistic that they will get a job again. One woman who came to see me had moved from a three-bedroom property to a two-bedroom property because her eldest child had left home, and she has—temporarily, she hopes—fallen out of work. She was encouraged to move to a two-bedroom social rented property, but the rent she pays for that is higher than the rent she was paying on the three-bedroom property. Now when she looks for work, she has to look for a job that pays even more to ensure she can cover the rent. That makes her search for work even more challenging.
Another example comes from Wenlock Barn estate in Hoxton in my constituency where more than 70 families on one estate are affected by the bedroom tax. They are not moving anywhere because those are their homes, and there are not many options that they can move down to. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to make clear in his response his party’s position as a party of government about the future of the bedroom tax.
I also want to mention GP services in east London and particularly Hackney. The Government have withdrawn the minimum practice income guarantee, or MPIG, but that unsexy sounding acronym is a serious issue for my constituents. I represent one of the most deprived areas of the country—although there are huge issues around the price of housing—and many people are living in great poverty and need health care support.
Yesterday I met Dr Sarah Williams who leads the campaign across east London to ensure we protect our GP services. Earlier this year I raised with Ministers during Health questions my concerns about how the withdrawal of the MPIG would affect the services that my constituents receive from their GPs, and I was told forcefully by the Minister that NHS England had the matter in hand. I happened to have a meeting in the next few days with NHS England and another London MP, and NHS England was clear that it was speaking with local GPs to try to find solutions to the issue. What I hear from local GPs, however, is not what I am hearing from those sources, and local GPs were unaware of the discussions that NHS England says it is having with them. Dr Williams told me, in her words, that the MPIG was introduced in 2004 “in perpetuity”, whereas Ministers have said on the record in the House that it was always supposed to be a temporary measure.
I am therefore asking for the minimum practice income guarantee withdrawal to be frozen. One seventh has been withdrawn because it will be withdrawn over a seven-year period, but perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House could pass this question on to Department of Health Ministers: how much overall will be drawn from the most deprived areas when the minimum practice income guarantee is withdrawn? Some GPs are very much in favour of the withdrawal. If we take away money from some practices and distribute it evenly across the whole, some practices will be net gainers. Many of my constituents have arrived from other parts of the country, and many have had poorer upbringings. All the data show that poor early upbringings have a long-term impact on health. We need GP services to be tuned in to that and ensure that we have the extra provision so that we have properly funded practices. I do not see why my constituents should lose those services in order to fund services in constituencies such as, to pick random examples, Carshalton and Wallington or Surrey Heath, where the needs are markedly less great.
In the short time I have left, I want to talk about child care, an issue I have raised many times. I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country. More than a fifth of residents are under 16. Therefore, a lot of parents of young children are struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of housing if they are living in the private rented sector or trying to buy, and because of the lottery of child care. We have good child care in Hackney, but finding the right child care when they need it is a challenge for all parents up and down the country.
Often, we think we are lucky when we get good child care, but it should be there anyway. I am perhaps bolder than those on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe we should have universal free provision of child care. That would have to be funded over time, but the revenue from taxpaying parents would soon cover it. Very few parents I know can afford to work full time because the cost of full-time child care is so great. They would contribute far more to the tax regime if they could.
We should see child care as a cross-party issue. The Government are trying things, but they tinker at the edges. They are fiddling around with the tax regime and making it even more complicated for parents when we already have systems in place. Introducing a new system does not solve the problem of supply, which is the serious issue.
As I said to the Prime Minister in the past month, broadband is a national embarrassment. I have often spoken about that but it is a national concern. We are too wedded as a country to one technology. Broadband is too expensive, particularly for small businesses, which need it when they are growing but do not have the money to spend. Business grants of £3,000 have been added in, but that is like a sticking plaster—it is a bit like worrying about the scratch on the patient’s finger when they have a broken leg. We need a comprehensive review of broadband, and plans for infrastructure and roll-out, and for a competitive framework that delivers.
My final point is a reminder to the House that it is 100 days today since the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls in north-eastern Nigeria. There is a demonstration today at the Nigerian embassy to ensure that we do not lose sight not just of those schoolgirls, but of the other abductions and atrocities that have taken place in Nigeria as a result of the activities of Boko Haram. As chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, I challenge the Nigerian authorities to ensure that their policing is done on human rights terms, and that there are no abuses from the security services. Not doing so would weaken the support that the international community gives to Nigeria. The state provision should be done properly and we should tackle the terrorists in the right way.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am interested in what my right hon. Friend has to say. Of course, her constituency is outwith London. None the less, as I understand it, this matter is the responsibility of Transport for London. She might wish to seek a debate on the Adjournment. To be as helpful as possible, I will write to Transport for London and the Mayor of London to see how they respond to the point that she rightly makes.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On 13 May, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to write to me about it. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to raise it with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Is it not time that the Secretary of State came to the House to talk about broadband and the plans to improve infrastructure, because Members of all parties from up and down the country have concerns about it?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will recall that the Secretary of State and his Ministers talked about broadband in response to questions last week. I thought that they did so very persuasively. I will look back at the dates to which she refers and see whether there are specific issues on which I can encourage Ministers to respond to her further.
Easter Adjournment
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall talk about the future of the Co-operative Group. I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP.
We have seen a lot of turmoil in the Co-operative Group recently, and the resignation of former chief executive Euan Sutherland, following the revelation of the scale and nature of his total remuneration package, carries a stark warning to the remaining Co-operative Group leadership, who must now reflect carefully on what that means for the future. Lord Myners resigned overnight, although I understand his review of the Co-operative Group and its management continues.
The new leadership came in without experience of the co-operative or mutual sector, and must understand the importance of maintaining strong relationships with the rest of the co-operative movement. There is scant evidence that that has so far been considered important, and the swift decision dramatically to reduce funding for Co-op organisations such as Co-operatives UK will dismay long-standing co-operators further now that the hypocrisy of the executive pay policy has been laid bare.
The immediate response to the fresh crisis has been to accelerate the agenda for reforming the Co-operative Group’s structure. That is continuing even following the departure of Lord Myners from the board. No one, active co-operators least of all, doubts that governance changes are needed. Much has been said about the weakness of non-executives, although few have benefited more from that weakness than the current executive team. Rather than rushing headlong into irreversible changes, however, we and the Co-operative Group’s board should take a breath and calmly reflect on the issues.
Eminent as Lord Myners may be, it is not credible to base the Co-operative Group’s future governance on the views of one man. To date, all seven regional boards have now rejected his plan, and the response has to be one of calm reflection and compromise. There are three immediate actions that should be taken to steady the co-operative ship and set a fresh course that will begin to build trust and confidence between the Co-operative Group’s leadership and members.
The first is one about which I have received a lot of correspondence from members and customers across the country. There is no place in a consumer-owned co-operative business for unearned executive bonuses, and 100% retention payments should be scrapped. How those payments came to be requested by management, and then approved by the board, must be explained. Equally, no member of the current executive will carry the membership’s confidence if they do not immediately and publicly declare that they will not accept such payments.
Alistair Asher, who is now the Co-operative Group’s general counsel, was formerly a partner at Allen & Overy, where he was involved with building society demutualisation. He may have worked on demutualisations in the past, but the Co-op does not want to demutualise. Another member of the team is Nick Folland, the director who deals with communications. Both those men have been given a retention package of more than £1 million this year and next year that is not performance-related. I repeat that such gross, over-inflated handouts must stop.
There are other costs of this misguided approach to altering the way the Co-op runs itself. The “Have Your Say” consultation with customers cost £1.5 million.
Sir Bob Russell
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech about the co-operative movement. Will she confirm that the Labour party was established some 60 years after the establishment of the Co-op, and that it is therefore in the best interests of the Co-op to embrace people of all political parties?
Meg Hillier
Up and down the country, co-operatives embrace people of all parties. The Co-op party has a sister arrangement with the Labour party, but that is not the thrust of my comments. I am talking about the Co-operative Group, which is ratcheting up costs at a high rate.
The Kelly review is costing £2,000 a day and the current total is £3.5 million. Millions of pounds have been spent on a new office next to the stock exchange, despite the Co-op Group having a brand new head office in Manchester.
Secondly, an eminent co-operators group should be established to advise and support Lord Myners in the valuable work that still needs to be carried out. The current leadership of the Co-op Group should reconnect with the wider co-operative movement. The best way to do that would be to establish a panel that can provide advice and support as the group goes through its reform process. Ideally, it would be chaired by someone like the former chief executive officer Sir Graham Melmoth or the former chairman Keith Darwin who have the credibility, experience and ability to provide candid advice to help steer the group to the next phase in its co-operative future.
Thirdly, an interim chief executive should be appointed who has mutual sector experience. The next chief executive will be perhaps the most critical person in the Co-op Group’s 170-year history. It is important that the recent errors are not repeated. It is critical that the new chief executive officer has a track record in the mutual sector. Confidence among member owners will simply not return without the trust that that would bring. The individual must understand the Co-op Group and be able to work across its diverse range of businesses.
We would do well to remember that the most successful CEO of recent years was Graham Melmoth. He was not a trader, but managed a team of skilled executives who ran the individual businesses while he oversaw the corporate strategy and provided leadership in line with the Co-op’s core principles. Such an approach would ensure that there was appropriate expertise in each division, while militating against the excessive micro-management of recent years.
The next few weeks will bring new challenges for the Co-operative Group. It will succeed through this period only if all its members and managers pull in the same direction and co-operate. Without an active and successful Co-op Group, our economy will lose a richness of choice and be the poorer for it. Members and customers up and down the country have been in touch with me to say that they are concerned about “our Co-op”. The management need to understand that feeling. They must listen to members. The Co-op is not just a brand; it is about mutual benefit and the sharing of profits among members. In my view, the Co-op is worth fighting for.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Procedure Committee makes a very good point. I assure him that the reports are not gathering dust; as he knows from our conversations, we are actively seeking to take forward his Committee’s recommendations—not least in relation to private Members’ Bills and programming—on the basis of consensus, as we always seek to do in this House. My hon. Friend has highlighted that there is pressure for business that we need to transact before the conclusion of this Session. I hope that I can satisfy him on that matter before the end of this Session.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, have received a letter from No. 10 Downing street this week. What is most alarming is that the information can have come only from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. At the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, the permanent secretary of HMRC acknowledged that it sometimes shares information with other Departments. Will the Leader of the House take more seriously the issue of how No. 10 and the Conservative party can send out letters to people using information from the HMRC database?
Mr Lansley
I will simply repeat what I have said. I will ask the Minister without Portfolio to respond to the hon. Lady and the shadow Leader of the House. I am not aware of any such transfer of data in relation to the letter. I was not even party to the process of preparing the letter.
Business of the House
Meg Hillier Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter. He will have noted the debate on local government finance reports on Wednesday next week, which provides the opportunity for Members to raise issues relating to local government. We can put the matter in a positive context not only through what has been achieved under the Localism Act 2011, but, more recently, through the ability of local authorities to retain business rate revenue and generate growth in their areas, and to benefit from that through the new homes bonus and growth bonuses. The devolution of the generation of growth and resources in local government in England mirrors what is happening in the national Governments of Scotland and Wales.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In passing, may I say how good it is to see a bit more diversity on the Government Front Bench? It is just a shame that three of the four Members on the Front Bench not required to be there have silent roles—perhaps it is time the Leader of the House put in a word for their promotion so that they can speak.
I am a great champion of university technical colleges—there is one in my constituency—but is it not time we had a debate about the hurdles they face as a result of the age of recruitment being 14 and the sudden speed at which they are being opened? It is time a Minister came to the House to talk in detail about this matter and to answer questions on the roll-out of this policy.
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a debate immediately. In defence of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I point out that one is here for the statement to follow, which I hope we will reach shortly, and the others, as Whips, are frequently on the Bench—and rightly so—in order to discharge their responsibilities.
In response to the hon. Lady’s question, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to her directly. I know she is interested in these issues.