Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

So sit down, and we will move on.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

For all the sound and fury from the Secretary of State, he knows that the maths does not lie and that the Government have failed on their targets. They have downgraded their affordable housing targets, and have still failed on those. When will the Secretary of State bite the bullet and provide more properly affordable social housing for people in my constituency and others who simply cannot afford to buy their own homes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not a full lesson we are putting out, just a good answer.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Disadvantage knows no boundaries and, likewise, we have huge challenges in our schools in Hackney. The Government promised that the starting salary for teachers would be £30,000. How close are the Government to reaching that manifesto commitment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talks about vacancies in the job market. There are vacancies, of course, but many of my constituents earn under £12,000 a year. They will not benefit from the tax cut, so they rely on universal credit to make up the gap. They cannot afford to work because of the high cost of childcare. They are already on the poverty line. What is his advice to them? Will he give us some comfort that the Government will make the right decision on uprating benefits?

Sewage Pollution

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2019, the River Lea suffered a discharge for 1,000 hours. That was three years ago, and the ripple effect of it will be longer than just this summer. But the Environment Agency, in response to my questions, says—as the Minister said—“Well, it is okay, we are monitoring more.” But that monitoring does not seem to deter the water companies from repeating their action. So why does he think the threat of prosecution and fines is not delivering quicker and better investment to stop this happening?

Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to make a point of order in a debate, but it is important to reflect on what the Paymaster General has just said and he may wish to correct the impression that he gave. Those loans are 10-year loans, so it cannot be the case that 80% of them have been repaid at this point. He may want to look again at his notes and perhaps correct the impression he gave.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is more a point of clarification than a point of order, but it is now on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

More than 1 million people still use only cash, and approximately 4 million use cash regularly, so it is vital that they have access to it. This is now the second consultation that the Treasury is going through, but as the PAC has seen, all the distribution of cash is in the hands of private providers. Can the Economic Secretary give any indication of the type of legislation that he can introduce to ensure that if people are very poor, they can get cash? That does not mean going to the supermarket and getting it out when they do not even know what is in their own account.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome that we are getting more clarity on some of the issues around defence spending, and particularly the Minister’s bold statement that he wants to see us

“achieving real reform in how we procure.”

It would be great if we saw some of that go down to our SMEs. However, as he knows, the National Audit Office concluded in its recent report on the defence equipment plan that the Department

“continues to make over-optimistic and inconsistent judgements when forecasting costs.”

That information comes from the Department’s own cost assurance and analysis service. Can the Minister tell the House and the country what precisely he is going to do differently to ensure that procurement and cost management in the equipment plan is managed better? What precise actions is he going to take?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As you might expect, Mr Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee is already beginning the reckoning of costs, and there is a cost to the Exchequer from all those people who were self-employed, or employed on short-term contracts, and who received no support. Ultimately, the state still has to support those people, and no tax comes in from them. Will the Chancellor go back to the drawing board and consider the long-term issue of the cost to our country of not supporting people who have a good track record with HMRC and who could be supported? They have lived on fresh air for all these months.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

The Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office is coming to the end of his term at the end of this month, and one item on my list of things to talk to the new Comptroller and Auditor General about is ensuring that there is a good and thorough process. Of course the National Audit Office does an excellent job, but we need to ensure that this is on its radar in the right timeframe and that we work up a way of ensuring that everything works effectively. We need to get in early to ensure that costs are not suddenly ramped up at the end.

I need to talk a bit about costs, and I will come to that in a moment. Other Select Committees will of course have the chance to examine these issues and, as the Leader of the House has said, there will be a further chance for this House to have a say in 2021. It is important that we build in scrutiny of the evaluation of, for example, the jobs and the money and of where the contracts are being let. In our speeches today, we have all been putting pressure on the Sponsor Body seriously to consider having a mechanism for ensuring that the wealth opportunities from this huge, amazing, international project are shared fairly across the UK wherever possible, and we must ensure that it is held to account for any pledges that it makes. We will hold its feet to the fire on this, and other Select Committees will have a role in that regard as well.

I want to touch on the northern estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is no longer in his place, suggested that it might be better not to glue that project to the main Palace project. However, my Committee believes that it is pretty vital that the Sponsor Body manages both projects, because they are so interconnected. The fact that the cloisters have now been empty for 18 months even though that was an urgent project is not a demonstration of a lack of will—there are many issues involved—but with all goodwill to the Clerks the House, they are not project managers of major projects. The whole point about the Sponsor Body is that it will have the expertise to hold those who deliver these big projects to account and to ensure that they get on with it. It is important that we also hand over the northern estate to a body of people who really have that expertise.

I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence car park issue now seems to be resolved, as it was getting ludicrous. The Committee was horrified to discover that a delay in that area could have meant a three-year delay and hundreds of millions of pounds in extra costs. We will also get future office space and more flexibility over the buildings as a result of any new buildings on the northern estate.

I remember when I visited New South Wales—I was there on holiday; this was not done at the taxpayer’s expense—I went to the head of the Sydney Olympics and was given the opportunity to visit the New South Wales culture minister. They had an amazing project to work with local businesses to help them to get ready to bid for projects on the Sydney Olympics. This helped businesses to learn how to procure and to work out a whole list of everything that would be needed on the Olympics. I would urge the Sponsor Body to adopt a similar approach, so that hon. Members who have already expressed an interest in bringing business, opportunities and work to their constituencies can show their local businesses what will be needed. For example, we will need to know how many wood carvers and stone carvers will be needed, so that the people out there who know how to do those things can gear up and be ready when bidding for that work starts.

I want to finish by talking about the important issue of costs. We need to nail them down, but we must not rush to pluck a figure from the air. The costs that we have been talking about so far—around the £4 billion mark—were indicative figures based on 2014 prices. They are not the true cost of establishing the work necessary to improve this building. That cannot be known until the business case has been worked up and we actually discover what is behind things. There will be a number of known unknowns, because every time we remove a bit of wood panelling there may be asbestos behind it. We just do not know, because the building’s plans are not accurate. There will need to be figures in the business case, but a proper contingency must also be built in that will have to be explained to the Sponsor Body in case the Delivery Authority needs to draw on it, and the relevant bodies need to be held firmly to account. To put inaccurate figures out now would be unhelpful, and we must ensure—the Leader of the House will be on this—that the figures are in the realms of reality.

No matter how expensive the project is, we must be honest with the taxpaying public about what is being spent. However, there will be no blank cheque. The Public Accounts Committee, under my watch or that of any successor, will keep a close eye on things, as will Members of this House, but we need to get on with the project now. We need to get the Sponsor Body in place, and it needs to appoint the Delivery Authority. I congratulate the Leader of the House on, I hope, getting us to a consensus tonight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to bring in the Opposition spokesman for his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since his election in 2001. I see that he has quite an audience. I call Mark Tami.

Carillion

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Committee on another excellent report, and on the forensic and measured way in which she delivered her statement. I hope that the Government take fair notice, although I worry that that may be a forlorn hope.

The Government were given a recommendation by the commercial relationships board that Carillion should be designated “high risk”. The Government ignored that, although the reason why remains unclear. Can my hon. Friend provide any further evidence of the reason for that rejection? The Government did not disclose that designation at the time of the Carillion scandal. Was that to protect their mates in Carillion rather than the taxpayer? The former chair of Carillion, Philip Green, was a Conservative supporter and Government adviser. Was the Government’s relationship with him more important than their responsibility to the taxpayer? We hope that the Government will now act on that responsibility and stop awarding contracts to big suppliers that continually fail to deliver.

The Government are too reliant on a small range of big private contractors. They have done little to widen that charmed circle, even though doing so would increase competition, support small and medium-sized enterprises, reduce costs and, critically, make us less reliant on suppliers in financial straits. Will my hon. Friend now widen her inquiry to look at others that may have been signed off by Ministers, contrary to recommendations of the commercial relationships board?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I obviously welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, but for future reference, he is supposed to ask a shortish question. Brief questions are ideal, even from Front-Bench speakers.

[Meg Hillier]

I would say to my hon. Friend that a piece of the jigsaw is missing. The papers released to the Public Accounts Committee only went so far, and the evidence we were given does not indicate when the Government made a decision about what to do with the recommendation in the risk assessment papers. I cannot provide any more evidence for why the Government chose not to implement the “black” rating at that stage, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are widening our inquiry and have access to the other papers. Sadly, and rather depressingly, the Committee has a large back catalogue, and we have highlighted a number of issues to do with contract management in government. We will not leave a stone unturned in our inquiry, and as I said to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), we hope to publish a report by the summer recess.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret that when I spoke earlier I neglected to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I seek to rectify that now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That has now been noted and rectified.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

If the hon. Lady wishes to improve energy security and insulation in homes and to reduce carbon, I do not understand why she does not recognise that the Bill is a game-changer. I recall another game-changing piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act 1956. That was the first in the world; this is the first in the world. That attracted—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that the hon. Lady has made her point.

[Meg Hillier]

First does not always mean best. We want the Bill to succeed in its aims, but if the hon. Lady looks at the detail of the Bill and reads the report of proceedings in the other place, she will observe the glaring gaps that I will shortly highlight. As I have said, the task is obvious and the challenge is great.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Transfer of information from National Identity Register to Identity and Passport Service

‘The Secretary of State must ensure that any information recorded in the National Identity Register which—

(a) relates to a person (“P”) who has indicated that P wishes to retain P’s identity card until its expiry date, and

(b) is relevant to an application by P for a passport,

is transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.’.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, in clause 2, leave out from ‘day’ to end of line 10 on page 3 and insert

‘will remain valid until their expiry date.’.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 13, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 16, in clause 3, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, present to Parliament a report identifying the information destroyed in accordance with subsection (1).’.

[Meg Hillier]

I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee, but the Opposition are concerned about the mean-spirited nature of the Bill. Some 14,000 people took up ID cards, most of which were paid for, and those individuals thought that the cards would be valid for 10 years. It was a simple transaction not just with a commercial body, but with Her Majesty’s Government and, indeed, the Identity and Passport Service, one of the most trusted public bodies in this country, as research shows. Yet if the Bill goes the way the Government wish and, similarly, through the Lords, one month after Royal Assent those individuals will lose the ability to use the card that they had thought would be valid for 10 years. We have tabled some new proposals and given the Government a choice about how to deal with the matter. There is still an opportunity for the Minister for Immigration to recognise that, in his haste to get rid of identity cards, which for him is a big ideological issue, he does not need also to be unfair to those who in good faith paid their £30.

The new clause and amendments detail two proposals. There is no money resolution attached to the Bill, so we cannot press for a refund. However, we propose that the fee that people paid be added as a credit to the passport database. The data-matching would be relatively straightforward, given that everybody who holds an identity card, including myself, has, or has recently had, a passport. Of course, there are data protection rules, and we would have to gain permission from those individuals, but I would happily give permission for my data to be transferred.

In the process, we would lose the fingerprint, because it cannot be stored—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister is listening. It cannot be stored on the passport database—[Interruption.] I am being ironic: the Minister will, I hope, be listening in a moment. It cannot be stored, because the Government, in their desire to get rid of it so quickly—[Interruption.] In their reckless desire to get rid of it quickly, I repeat for the Minister, the Government do not plan to introduce passports with fingerprints. However, that credit would give some comfort to those who paid £30, and it would represent basic fairness.

The Government make great play of fairness—they often point to their coalition agreement, which makes much of it—and, as we seem to be quoting manifestos today, each individual party spoke about fairness in its manifesto, so we ask that the proposal be considered. It would be a relatively straightforward transaction, and with another amendment we will probe the Minister on a further issue. If the Government are planning to destroy the data, they will have to handle the information and do something with it, so they might as well pass it over to the passport database.