Murder of Lee Rigby
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that is what the “Not in my name” campaign is all about: it is about Muslims throughout our country saying that this very small minority fringe of people who have been radicalised and who buy this extremist ideology do not speak for Islam. It is very important for us to make that point. British Muslims want to see robust anti-terrorism and criminal justice powers as much as anyone else.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will recall coming to Woolwich in the aftermath of the killing of Lee Rigby—to whose memory we all pay tribute—and he will recall the commitment of the local community to preventing this horrific incident from damaging community relations and opening the door to extremism. May I urge him to look again at the issue of Prevent, which has been highlighted by two of my colleagues? I remind him that the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report refers specifically to
“the relatively low priority (and funding) given to Prevent”,
and goes on to say:
“This misses the value that Prevent can offer: successfully diverting individuals from the radicalisation path”.
The Prime Minister
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, who has spoken now, as he did then, for the people of Woolwich in standing up to this horrific murder. We definitely think that Prevent is important. That is why we are putting it on a statutory footing, why the funding is going up, why extra resources are being made available today, and why we are backing it with a duty that is being placed on all public bodies in the United Kingdom.
Civil Service Reform
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I at the outset draw attention to a non-pecuniary interest? I chair the Centre for Public Scrutiny. I think it is right that that should be placed on the record before I make my comments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this debate and I strongly support his Committee’s recommendation for a parliamentary commission on the civil service. I listened carefully to the views of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I do not wish him ill with his initiative, but I cannot see how a think-tank set up in the spirit of letting a thousand flowers bloom will be able to produce an authoritative report that carries the weight necessary to lay the foundations for the future of our Government and civil service for decades to come. Frankly, it is a distraction. I note that the Government, in their grounds for rejecting the PASC recommendations, have said that they do not see the need for any more analysis or evidence gathering, but want action. If the Government welcome this initiative, I am not quite sure why they believe that evidence is not necessary, but are happy for this particular think-tank to gather evidence.
Few people would dispute the fact that our system of government faces huge challenges, partly because public confidence, which was badly damaged by the parliamentary expenses scandal, remains fragile, but equally because people are worried about the series of well-documented failures of the current Government and previous ones. The Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), has highlighted a couple or three examples, and Ivor Crewe and Anthony King’s book, “The Blunders of our Governments”, provides much more documentation.
All that is reflected not only in negative perceptions of the system of government, but in evidence of increased tension between Ministers and civil servants. As the PASC report demonstrates, there is too much evidence of a blame culture, with Ministers seeking to evade responsibility for their failings by blaming civil servants and civil servants responding by showing a less-than-eager appetite for implementing policies they believe are inept or driven by party political motivation. Those serious and corrosive problems need to be addressed and dealt with, and we must have an authoritative group of people who are genuinely seen as impartial and as seeking a serious long-term solution to the kind of tensions that, sadly, are all too rife.
We know only too well that the architecture of our system of government—based on the doctrines of civil service impartiality and ministerial accountability to Parliament—evolved in a very different world, when the scale and nature of the civil service and the responsibilities for which Ministers were held accountable were very different from today’s, and when the Government had time to reflect and discuss collectively how best to respond, rather than being driven remorselessly by the demands of 24/7 media, as they are today. All that suggests that we need a proper, strategic cross-party assessment of how those doctrines should evolve or be changed to meet today’s different circumstances. That is precisely why I strongly support the idea of a parliamentary commission.
As the proposal for a parliamentary commission has received the backing of not only the Public Administration Committee but the Liaison Committee, I am surprised that the Government are so resistant. Frankly, when I read the Government’s reasons, my surprise turns to incredulity. The Government’s alternative, which is offered as an excuse for rejecting the idea of a commission, is not just inadequate, but in some respects counter-productive. Essentially, the Government case is that their civil service reform programme is sufficient, and that a commission would effectively be a distraction.
The first problem with that analysis is that the Government’s approach is neither strategic nor coherent. It has been well described as comprising a number of disjointed initiatives, some of which might be very productive, but some of which will not. The second problem is that the Government’s response is partial, and will not generate the cross-party consensus that is vital for any truly workable reform. The third problem is that the Government’s approach totally fails to address some of the key problems underlying the current negative perceptions of the system of government.
To give just one example, in one of the most highly centralised systems of government in the world, we have a serious problem of overload on Ministers, with far too many relatively minor issues being decided by central Government, rather than devolved to the lower tiers of government that are far better placed to handle them. One consequence is that there are too many Ministers, as the PASC report points out. Against that background, it is astonishing that a Government who used to proclaim their localist credentials—I note that they are rather tarnished these days—are simply not, as part of their civil service reform agenda, considering how to reduce overload on central Government through devolving powers that are more appropriately discharged elsewhere. The bizarre consequence is that although there is a clear objective to reduce the size of the civil service, the number of Ministers is not falling and the number of special advisers is growing, contrary to what the governing parties aspired to before they came into power.
I mentioned that some of the approaches in the Government’s civil service reform plan might be counter-productive. One example is the attempt to increase political influence over civil service appointments. I wholly concur with the views of Lord Hennessy, perhaps the foremost historian of 20th-century British government, who described the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms as
“the greatest single governing gift of the nineteenth to the twentieth century: a politically disinterested and permanent Civil Service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.
By contrast, the viability of the permanent civil service has now been called into question, against the background of an extraordinarily high turnover of permanent secretaries and the hollowing out of expertise from several Departments, which threatens their collective memory and experience, and leaves them increasingly dependent on external sources of advice, many of which will have partial, if not party political, agendas.
I have absolutely no doubt that the problems that afflict our system of government, which undermine trust between civil servants and Ministers, which contribute to ill-thought-out and poorly implemented policies and which leave the public increasingly sceptical about our ability to give them the good governance that they rightly expect, will persist and will not be remedied by the Government’s reform programme or the proposed think-tank. Some day—I hope that it is not too far away—Parliament will have to flex its muscles and insist on a full cross-party parliamentary commission to address the issue properly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q7. In his statement following the appalling murder of Drummer Lee Rigby a month ago, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Government’s taskforce on tackling extremism, and said:“We will also look at new ways to support communities as they come together and take a united stand against all forms of extremism.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1235.]In Woolwich, our diverse communities have been working hard to do just that. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what progress has been made by the taskforce, and specifically what new ways he envisages will emerge to support communities such as ours?
The Prime Minister
First, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman on all the action he has taken in his community. I saw for myself when visiting Woolwich how strongly that community has come together to decry absolutely what happened and to build a stronger future.
The taskforce has met, and the first papers and ideas have been commissioned. One particular idea we are looking at is something I heard about when I was with the right hon. Gentleman in Woolwich: where, for instance, communities want to come together and try to drive extremist groups out of particular mosques or Islamic centres, they often need help, including help with legal advice, to do that. That is one of the specific ideas, but the action of this taskforce should cover the whole waterfront of everything we do right across our communities.
EU Council and Woolwich
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regularly updated the House on Syria in statements, and the House of Commons has plenty of ways, if it wants to, to hold debates and votes on this issue. All that has been decided to date is that we should lift the arms embargo on the official Syrian opposition—an opposition that we recognise as legitimate representatives of the Syrian people and as a group that believes in democracy, human rights and standing up for minorities. That is the decision that has been taken to date, and no further decisions have been taken.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On behalf of the people of Woolwich, I thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition not just for what they have said this afternoon, but for their visits to Woolwich in the aftermath of the hideous killing of Drummer Lee Rigby. I thank them for their support, and for the commitment—a cross-party commitment—to take this agenda forward in the coming months and years.
Let me, however, gently remind Members that our own natural instincts often do not allow us to sustain unanimity across the House during periods of division. The agenda of building harmony between different groups and countering extremism is a long-term agenda that will not be won immediately. It will require ongoing commitment, and we will need to demonstrate that cross-party commitment in the long term if we are really to succeed.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has done in Greenwich and Woolwich to bring people and communities together. There has been such a strong and positive response, and such a powerful condemnation by everyone of what happened to that brave soldier.
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about cross-party work is important. I think that there is quite a strong sense across the House that while we may disagree about individual items on the agenda, we need to do more to prevent young minds from being perverted, to stop this radicalisation and to confront this extremist ideology. I think that there is strong support for those proposals.
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As almost all of us are recipients of expenses, I assume that it is appropriate to make a declaration of interest at the outset.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
You make a profit, do you?
Mr Raynsford
I assure my hon. Friend that I do not make a profit.
I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) not only for his introductory remarks, which have given a good and fair outline of the Committee’s report, but for all his work, not just as Chair of the Committee but prior to its establishment, in ensuring that this important issue is looked at in a clear and dispassionate way. I believe that, under his chairmanship, the Committee achieved that objective. It looked carefully, rigorously and dispassionately at the evidence and has come forward with recommendations that I believe are sound and sensible and should be taken up.
However, a few key messages need emphasising. The first is that, contrary to what has been suggested by some commentators, who have rushed into print to condemn the report, the Committee was adamant—no pun intended—in its support for the retention of independent regulation of MPs’ expenses. As the surveys conducted by the National Audit Office earlier this year and the Committee itself more recently have demonstrated, there is a very wide degree of support among MPs generally for the principle of independent regulation. Some 77% of MPs who responded to the latest survey agreed that independent regulation was important for restoring public confidence.
Having said that, the way in which the independent regulator has operated the system since May 2010 has been fraught with problems. Those problems provided a huge amount of evidence to the Committee in the course of its considerations. They are all documented in the report and its annexe. The process for making claims, considering them and paying expenses has proved slow and cumbersome. Many MPs have been left substantially out of pocket because of the time lag between expenditure and reimbursement. The system is far from cost-effective. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) highlighted, the NAO concluded last summer that 38% of claims at that time involved processing costs higher than the amount being claimed.
The system also imposes heavy burdens on MPs’ staff, thus diverting them away from their primary responsibility of looking after the interests of constituents. It also, of course, imposes burdens on MPs themselves. There is a great deal of evidence that MPs are not able to perform other functions because of the time that they have to spend on cumbersome bureaucratic processes. There is also evidence that MPs are deterred from making claims because of time-consuming and tortuous processes and the lack of clear advice from IPSA on what claims may be appropriate. There is also the fear of being subject to media and public criticism, either for claiming too much, or—paradoxically—for claiming too little; we all know of examples of minor items that Members feel would be held up to ridicule if a claim were seen to have been made for them.
Both the NAO report last summer and the Committee’s report, published now, demonstrate a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of MPs about the working of the system as currently operated—not, I stress, about the concept of independent regulation, but about the system as it is currently operating.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On dissatisfaction, I should say that the public interest is illustrated in paragraph 80, page 27, which points out that the cost of IPSA is £6.4 million. If we allowed £400,000 for processing payroll, that would leave costs of £6 million for other expenses of £19.5 million. I cannot believe that the House would allow that to happen in any other part of the public sector.
Mr Raynsford
I was going to come to this point later, but I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's view that the system is cumbersome and slow, and is not cost-effective. It is costing the country a great deal more than is necessary for a safe, rigorous and transparent system for overseeing MPs’ expenses claims.
Michael Connarty
On whether the system, which is costing that amount of money, is effective, IPSA cannot process a direct debit. It cannot process a BACS payment. The Scottish Parliament, when I shared an office with an MSP, used to process direct debits and send me a bill for half because we did not have the capacity to do that either in the Fees Office or in IPSA. It seems that for £6 million we get a system that does not work.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a telling point and countless examples have been brought to those of us who served on the Committee of ways in which the current system imposes unreasonable costs and burdens and is inefficient. Our objective as a Committee was to come forward with proposals that would be practical and sensible and could be implemented to achieve a better system of independently regulated expenses. That is the nub of what the Committee is proposing. As the report emphasises, the improvement of the process should deliver savings in expenditure because the current system costs more than is required to run an independently regulated, transparent and cost-effective system. Indeed, as the Chair of the Committee made clear, it is hard to find examples anywhere else in the world of a system where the regulator is also the payment agency—where the two roles, administration and regulation, are combined. There are unfortunately inherent inefficiencies in the way in which that is being done, which need to be addressed to create a fair but also more cost-effective system.
Therefore, it is sad, but not entirely unpredictable, that much of the media reaction to the publication of the report and today’s debate is to interpret them as an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days. May I say openly, as an MP who has not been subject to personal criticism for his expense claims over the years, that I have no wish whatever to revert to the old system, which was open to abuse and has rightly been replaced by one of independent regulation? All MPs suffered reputational damage as a result of the exposure of the abuses that some perpetrated under the old system. The restoration of public confidence is vital and that is what should be at the forefront of our minds. That is why we must stick with a system of independent regulation, but it is also why we should not stay silent now about the failings of the administration of the existing system.
The worry is that, because MPs are naturally worried about reputational damage in a climate where some of the media have used this as an opportunity in the last day or two to raise lurid headlines of “Back to the bad old days”, and “Greedy MPs want more money”, genuine concerns about the inefficiencies and unsatisfactory features of the current system will not be addressed. MPs find it easier and safer not to put their heads above the parapet and risk being attacked by the media for supporting sensible recommendations that will improve the system.
Alison Seabeck
I also declare an interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taxpayer will not thank us in the long term if we kick the issue into the long grass and allow the additional costs that IPSA is racking up in processing our claims to continue ad infinitum? Something does really need to be done.
Mr Raynsford
I agree wholeheartedly. We have a responsibility to speak out openly and properly about the failings of the existing system, while at the same time making clear our commitment to a framework of independently regulated expenses that guarantee transparency, probity and all the objectives that were rightly emphasised in the preparation of the 2009 legislation.
The report proposes exactly that. First, any fair-minded commentator reading the report will see that it clearly is not arguing for a return to the old discredited system of self-regulation; that is not anywhere in the report. It is utter nonsense for some media commentators to imply that that is the objective. Secondly, it is not a case of “greedy” MPs arguing for more money. As any fair-minded observer of the report will see, it focuses on ways in which savings can be made and argues that we should be operating a system that gives better value for money to the taxpayer. Indeed, as the report highlights, the criticisms have been overwhelmingly about the processes operated by IPSA, rather than the amounts of money involved. Thirdly, the report does not argue for flat-rate allowances, although it has been misrepresented as doing so. I will come back to that issue in a moment because it is controversial, but it is important to put on the record that it is not the Committee’s recommendation that there should be flat-rate allowances, other than those that already exist. There are flat-rate allowances in the existing system that apply to London MPs and those living in the area around outer London.
Bob Russell
I am sure the media have not deliberately gone out of their way to misrepresent the report and thus mislead readers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the TaxPayers Alliance had not read the report when it made its comments? Clearly, as has been pointed out, the report would not impose an additional cost on the public purse; in fact it talks about greater efficiency and saving money for the public purse. Perhaps those at the TaxPayers Alliance are the people who are at fault and not the national media.
Mr Raynsford
I note, but I cannot say I am persuaded by, the hon. Gentleman’s touching faith in the integrity and probity of journalists, not all of whose expense claims would survive the slightest degree of the scrutiny that they advocate in the case of MPs. However, I agree that there are some forces outside this place that are only too keen to rush to judgment. They do not make a proper considered appraisal of the evidence in the report, or weigh up the merits and arguments and debate those rationally, but rush into caricature and vitriolic attacks on MPs because they have an agenda, which I do not wish to elaborate on further today.
The report proposes, first, separation of the regulation of the expenses system, which should remain in independent hands, from the administration, which as we have heard repeatedly and saw in the evidence submitted to the Committee, could be handled in a far more cost-effective way. The report does not propose a return to the Fees Office but it does suggest having a cost-effective administrative body appointed to run the process of handling claims and making payments, subject to the independent regulator's overall remit. That kind of structure applies almost universally in comparable organisations. It does not require a return to administration in this House. It could be done entirely independently. The case for separating the regulatory function from the administrative function was made forcefully by a large number of extremely experienced people who gave evidence to our Committee, many of whom said that the present arrangement was indefensible and not cost-effective.
Secondly, the report recommends the extension of direct payments to cut down on bureaucracy and costs without any risk of MPs gaining a financial advantage. That must be common sense. The report also proposes more extensive central procurement of equipment and supplies to save public money—again, a recommendation that should command widespread support. It proposes the annual publication of claims, backed up by receipts that have been redacted to remove personal details. That of course goes far further than the current system, which does not involve the publication of receipts, so the suggestion that we are trying to get away from transparency in making that recommendation is curious.
The framework proposed in the report would be more transparent than the current arrangements. At the same time, it would reduce the scope for potentially misleading indications of MPs’ expenses, which is the product of bi-monthly publication. That can result in some MPs who have particular surges, peaks or troughs in expenditure looking as though, in any one set of published figures, they are spending much more than their neighbours. Therefore, a simple, more accurate and fully transparent annualised publication system, together with a move towards real-time publication, as is proposed, must make sense.
The report recommends strongly the clear separation of expenses, which are items such as travel, subsistence and accommodation costs, from office expenditure. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and many others have made the point that such expenditure, bizarrely and uniquely to Members of Parliament, is treated as an expense. Where else would the costs necessary to carry out one’s job, such as for one’s desk, staff, office supplies, printers and so forth, be treated as an expense? Those are not, in normal parlance, an expense, but necessary costs of carrying out our functions. They should be identified separately so that we no longer see the highly misleading figures that are produced by some journalists to imply that MPs benefit from expenses of £120,000 a year, when that is a reflection of the costs of running their office and of their staffing. Those costs should not be subsumed by, or confused with, expenses.
Mr Winnick
Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), I intervened when the Chair of the Select Committee was speaking. What is IPSA’s response to that point? Does it accept that it is farcical to describe staff salaries and office accommodation as expenses?
Mr Raynsford
If my hon. Friend reads the transcripts of the evidence, he will see that the Committee took evidence from Sir Ian Kennedy in two sessions. He will have to draw his own conclusions from the views set forward by Sir Ian Kennedy. I have to say that we did not feel that there was a meeting of minds that would suggest the likelihood of a smooth and easy transition from the current arrangements to ones that would work properly and effectively, and in a way that guaranteed the public confidence in Parliament that we all want to see.
The report recommends the establishment of a liaison group between IPSA and representatives of MPs’ staff. I found it extraordinary that no such group exists, but that probably explains why IPSA, in some of its evidence to us and in some of its responses to MPs, appears to be surprisingly ignorant of the practical implications for the staff in this place of operating the systems that it has set up. The establishment of a liaison framework between IPSA and MPs’ staff, who do the bulk of the work in making claims and processing applications, is surely commonsensical and ought to be done.
I cannot see how the many pragmatic and sensible reform proposals in the report merit the intemperate language that has been heaped on them by some media commentators. However, let me in conclusion focus on two recommendations that might appear to be more controversial. The first is the proposal to amend the legislation to make it clear that the independent regulator should, in line with the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life,
“support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently in carrying out their parliamentary functions”.
The way in which that recommendation was transposed into legislation allowed a loss of clarity.
Adam Afriyie
It struck us in the evidence sessions that even the chairman of IPSA acknowledged that he did not quite have the mandate to justify supporting MPs in the way that he wanted, because the legislation says that he must “have regard to” the principle of supporting MPs cost-effectively and efficiently, rather than it being a primary duty. It is clear from all the observations and evidence that there can be no other primary duty for such a body than to support MPs cost-effectively and efficiently in doing the duties that their constituents expect.
Mr Raynsford
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear from the evidence that there is a lack of clarity in the legislation, and that needs to be resolved. It cannot be satisfactory for the chairman of IPSA to talk in fairly broad terms about balancing a number of different considerations, some of which are in legislation and some of which are not. That gives no clarity about what the role and responsibility of the independent regulator should be.
There is a persuasive case for making this change. This is not MPs arguing for support, which some journalists have interpreted it to be. It is not us saying that we need customer care, as has been suggested. This is about clarity in the role of IPSA and in the balance that needs to be struck in its work between ensuring that MPs have the support necessary to carry out their functions properly, in a cost-effective and transparent way, and ensuring that all the other objectives that we want are satisfied. The lack of clarity needs to go. The arguments are set out very persuasively in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report, and I commend them to right hon. and hon. Members.
The second recommendation that might be seen as controversial is in respect of flat-rate allowances. The first thing that I should say is that it is sometimes ignored that there are existing flat-rate allowances. As a London Member, I obviously receive one such allowance. Members from outer London and the immediate surrounding areas are also eligible for an additional allowance. Those elements exist at the moment.
It was put to the Committee that there might be a case for extending that principle of allowances to cut out much of the considerable cost involved in checking and processing individual claims for travel and accommodation costs. I can see an argument for that, but I am not wholly persuaded that it should be done. I do believe, and I think that the Committee believes, that it is right for the idea to be evaluated independently. That is why the recommendation in the report states clearly that there should be an independent evaluation of it.
Cathy Jamieson
Like my right hon. Friend and as a member of the Committee, I was not persuaded that we should move to that system. However, does he agree that if it is not evaluated and analysed independently, we will continue to have these arguments and the debate will continue in the media? We therefore need to consider it in more detail.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. I hope that all Members, including those who are nervous about possible media criticism of any steps that we take in this matter, accept that there is a world of difference between a recommendation to introduce such a fairly fundamental change to the way in which expenses are paid and a recommendation that the likely costs, benefits and adverse consequences of it should be evaluated independently. That is the nub of the Committee’s recommendation.
I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor that there might be ambivalence about the recommendation that the House should have an opportunity to debate this matter. The point has been made forcefully that whatever the House decides, it will be for IPSA, ultimately, to determine whether any such recommendations should be supported. That, to my mind, means that the motion is acceptable. I would prefer it to the amendment, which has the whiff of the long grass about it. I am only sorry that a member of the Committee who signed up to the report as written and as presented to the House has moved an amendment that goes in a slightly different direction. I believe that the report stands. I accept entirely the ambiguity in the role of the decision by the House. I support very much the hon. Member for Windsor in his view that the House should consider the recommendation, but that ultimately it will be for IPSA to determine whether it should be applied as the basis for an expenses scheme.
In conclusion, I believe that this is a sensible, pragmatic and important report that deserves serious consideration. It should not either proceed to the long grass or continue to be the subject of vilification from certain quarters where it is seen as simply a rerun of the debates of two or three years ago, when completely unacceptable malpractice under the old system was exposed. That has passed, and we are in a different era. The principle of independent regulation is accepted and the new system is in place. It is not working as well as it should, for reasons that have been outlined, and it is right that we should be serious about finding ways of improving it. We need to ensure that we have a system for MPs to be able to carry out their functions, responsibilities and duties in a proper way and to be reimbursed for expenditure that they have of necessity to incur to perform those duties.
Mr Harper
No, IPSA has not considered the report. IPSA has said that it will consider the Committee’s recommendations, as it considers the annual review of the scheme. As I have said, the Government have had to consider the report because the House is being invited today to decide whether to approve it. I simply said at the beginning of my remarks that the Government would have welcomed having had more than three days in which to do so, and that would have done justice to the report. Many Members said that they wanted a careful and thoughtful review, so I am gently suggesting that giving the Government three days was perhaps not entirely helpful in achieving that objective.
The Government’s interest in IPSA concerns equipping it with its statutory framework. IPSA is accountable to the House and the Speaker’s Committee, which was set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The Government are primarily concerned about recommendations 2 and 3, which are for the Government. I will say something about recommendation 17, which deals with the decision that the House would be invited to take.
Recommendation 2—the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich addressed this point—states:
“The Act should be amended in accordance with the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to provide that IPSA’s primary duty is ‘to support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently in carrying out their parliamentary functions.’ It would continue to be IPSA’s role to determine what assistance for MPs was necessary.”
It seems that there are two schools of thought about what that recommendation means. It is either a modest change that is meant to correct the emphasis of the legislation—
Mr Harper
I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding to that. Or it is a substantial change that would alter significantly the way in which IPSA functions.
If it is a modest change, it is unnecessary and would have no practical implication. Hon. Members will be aware that one amendment made to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was the insertion of section 3A. That section sets out the general duties of IPSA, which are twofold. One is that IPSA must, in carrying out its functions, have regard to the principle that it should act in a way that is efficient, cost-effective and transparent, when it is running its systems and setting them up. The second duty is that in carrying out its functions, IPSA must have regard to the principle that Members of the House of Commons should be supported in carrying out their parliamentary functions efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Although the duty to have regard to the principle that we should be supported to do our jobs comes second in order, it is none the less just as much a legal duty as the first; it is not an optional extra that IPSA can put to one side. That is why the change of emphasis would be unnecessary and would simply have no practical effect in how it operates.
Mr Raynsford
Does the Minister accept the point that is articulated in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report? There is ambiguity, which was reflected in Sir Ian Kennedy’s response in trying to define the primary principles that should guide IPSA. That lack of clarity is not helpful. There is a need for a change. I am talking not about fundamental changes in the principles, but about a clarification, so that there is no longer any ambiguity.
Mr Harper
That was a helpful intervention. Let me pick it up as I move on to my second thought on this matter. If recommendation 2 is going to make a significant difference, and is not a modest change, it is misplaced. IPSA has a number of objectives that must be balanced. The Committee recognises that itself. Paragraph 97 of the report states:
“Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
It is quite clear that IPSA has a number of things that it is trying to achieve. Yes, it wants to support Members of Parliament to do their jobs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Indeed, it has a legal duty to do so. It is also interested in both restoring—there is some evidence that there has been progress in that direction—and maintaining public confidence in MPs—[Interruption.] A comment has been made from a sedentary position. I am not going to repeat it for the benefit of the House. I am afraid that I am simply reading out what the Committee said in its report. Let me repeat paragraph 97 for the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell):
““Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
Those are not my words—
Mr Harper
The Committee has done an excellent job in putting together what I acknowledge to be some very good recommendations, and I hope that the House will send those recommendations to IPSA. IPSA has said that it will look at them, and that is absolutely fine. However, we must accept that, if IPSA is indeed independent, and if it considers those recommendations and decides not to implement them, we must live with its decision. It seems to me that if we say, as the report says in paragraph 204, that if it does not implement them by next April we will pass primary legislation to make it do so, we shall no longer have an independent regulator for our expenses system. I think that I speak not just for the Government but for most Members when I say that we cannot start telling IPSA what to do.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being very generous. May I return him to the question that I asked earlier about the lack of clarity? When giving evidence to the Committee, Sir Ian Kennedy was asked to define the basic principles that guided IPSA. He was reminded that some were contained in legislation, and that some nine or 10 others were listed in a document that he had submitted. He gave us the slightly odd response that all of them were fundamental, which—as I pointed out to him—implied a lack of clarity in regard to what really were the fundamental principles. Will the Minister please accept that, given that the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was not transcribed into legislation in precisely those terms, there is genuine uncertainty about what should be IPSA’s dominant objectives?
Mr Harper
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have made it clear that IPSA has a legal duty to carry out its work and to ensure that we are “efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently” supported in the carrying out of our functions. However, IPSA must balance that duty with a range of other duties, one of which is restoring and maintaining public confidence. It will not be possible for it to have a sole objective.
Libya
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That is an ingenious question. The point is that we should wait and see what it is the Libyans want us to do. We clearly have strong capabilities in the training of armed forces and police forces, in advising on having an independent judiciary and the like, and I believe we should make these available and see what the Libyans want. Training the police forces of other countries is a difficult issue. In getting into it, one is often accused of helping a regime that might not be perfect in every sense, but if we do not do it, we lose the opportunity to explain some of the finer points of independent policing and respect for human rights. This is a very difficult issue that we have not yet got right.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that President Assad of Syria has lost all legitimacy, that he should stand aside and that the violence must end. At the same time, the Prime Minister recognises that there is not yet the degree of international agreement necessary to give effect to those expressions of intent. Will he tell us more about what he and his Government are doing to try to build international agreement to the level where it becomes possible to force President Assad to pay attention to what the right hon. Gentleman described in respect of Libya as the moral imperative of stopping the slaughter of civilians?
The Prime Minister
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a series of permanent conversations, particularly those that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is having. At the European level, there is a high degree of unity—in some ways, I think the EU has led the way, particularly with the oil embargo—but we also need to have, and are having, strong discussions with the permanent members of the Security Council. The right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned Russia, which I shall be visiting soon. We also need discussions with the non-permanent members like South Africa and others, and more widely, including with the Arab League, so that we build international support. There is no substitute for a lot of hard work and diplomacy to try to build the strongest possible coalition.
Public Disorder
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I cannot give my hon. Friend figures on which specific part of the Public Order Act people have been charged under, because, as he will know, that Act, which has really stood the test of time, has many parts under which charges can be laid. The latest figures that I have state that, in London alone, 880 people have been arrested and more than 370 have already been charged.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
At a meeting this morning attended by a number of London Members of Parliament of all parties who, like me, are concerned about the impact of the riots on their constituencies, the Mayor of London made it perfectly clear that these events made an overwhelmingly powerful case for reconsidering the cuts in the police budget, which will have an adverse impact on the number of police available on the beat. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to listen to Opposition Members, but will he listen to the views of that member of his own party, who is the one elected person other than a national politician with responsibility for policing?
The Prime Minister
Today, as we speak, only 12% of police officers are on the beat at any one time. I simply refuse to accept that we cannot get better value for money and cut paperwork so that we get the more visible policing that everyone wants. The Labour party seems to be completely intellectually idle about even considering changes that could be made that would increase the visibility of police in our communities.
Public Confidence in the Media and Police
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The short answer to my hon. Friend is that I think transparency is probably the best answer. I will come on to that in my speech, when I open the debate, but I think the best way of making sure that relationships are appropriate, and that we do not duck issues of media regulation, is for everyone to see how often we meet.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised that he has no evidence of any complaint or questions about the conduct of Andy Coulson while he was heading the Government media service. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a year ago, during the period when Mr Coulson was director of communications, the Cabinet Secretary was alerted to evidence of illegal phone hacking, covert surveillance and hostile media briefing directed against a senior official in the Government service? What action, if any, was taken to investigate what appears to have been disgraceful and illegal conduct close to the heart of Government?
The Prime Minister
I will have to look very closely at what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the point that I made—I have never seen any evidence to go against it—is that in the period that Andy Coulson worked at No. 10 Downing street as head of communications, there was no complaint about the way he did his job. I fully accept that I take responsibility for employing him. I take responsibility for that decision, and I have laid out very clearly today what I think of that now, and all that has been learned. You have to learn these lessons if you are to go on and get things right for the future. What I would say in my defence is that in the time he spent in Downing street, he did not behave in a way that anyone felt was inappropriate, and that is important, because the decision was to employ him. The decision was then his to leave. During that period, people cannot point to misconduct and say, “That, therefore, was a misjudgment.”
Open Public Services White Paper
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend is right that we have to maintain consistency. If we are going to achieve real choice and real power for those who are served by public services, we have to allow for diversity of provision and to be on our guard always to ensure that those who can enter the market are able to do so. That is one reason why the White Paper contains specific provisions for redress where particular providers find that they are being kept out of the market. One of the techniques that we are using for doing that was developed by the previous Government. The competition and co-operation panel and its rules, which were set up by the last Labour Government, will apply in the NHS. That is the right kind of system, and we need to replicate it in a whole series of other domains where diverse providers currently have no redress if they are prevented from entering the market.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman made a lot in his speech of the potential for local community groups to take over assets of community value and seize control of planning in their areas. He will be aware that there are community groups in various areas of the country—I would remind him of the route of High Speed 2—that are not necessarily in favour of development and may wish to use enhanced powers to stop it. He will also be conscious that the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that in such instances of national economic development interest, the default planning position should be to say yes. Who will prevail in a conflict between a community wanting to stop a development and the Chancellor wanting it to proceed?
Mr Letwin
The right hon. Gentleman is too much of an expert to need me to tell him this, but I will tell him because he asks for it. We have, of course, established a two-level system. For most planning decisions, we hope that the neighbourhood will take charge by engaging in neighbourhood planning. We believe that the incentives that we have built into the financial system—including the ability to get a meaningful proportion of the community infrastructure levy paid to the neighbourhood if it has more housing and development in its area—will lead neighbourhoods on the whole to prefer development. The presumption of sustainable development means that their neighbourhood plans will have to include development of an appropriate kind in order to pass muster. There will be an assessment of local housing need that contributes to that, which plans will have to observe.
However, nobody is going to pretend in our Government, any more than in the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, that any neighbourhood will welcome a nuclear power station just next to it or a railway line running straight through it. Of course there will be objections in those cases, which is why we have maintained and democratised the very system that he and his colleagues set up—because they, too, operated a two-level system—in order to accelerate planning applications for major pieces of national infrastructure. There is no disagreement between us and the right hon. Gentleman on that, and there is no reason for him to invent one.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister accused Labour Members of scaremongering during the general election for highlighting the Conservative threat to take security of tenure from council tenants and impose massive rent increases on them, was he goading us to use unparliamentary language or was he simply being economical with the truth?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will hear in a minute what our plans are for bold housing reform that will lead to more social homes being built, but it does not actually involve changes to tenure. I do think that we have to look at new ways to get houses built. The fact is that under the last Government we had housing targets and vast amounts of investment in social housing, but house building was lower in every year of the last Government than it was under the previous Conservative Government. That is a common story: vast amounts of money spent, with very poor results.