Valedictory Debate
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), not least because, although we come from different political persuasions, he is the Member of the House I have known the longest, in that we both attended the same school more than 55 years ago. I recall inviting him to see examples of bad housing in the area of west London, where I worked in the late 1970s, when he was appointed as the housing Minister.
I thank the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for initiating this debate. I suspect the inspiration behind it was the speech delivered by Chris Mullin, my former friend from Sunderland, exactly five years ago when he initiated the concept of a valedictory speech under slightly different circumstances. One thing he said was that the “disillusionment and corrosive cynicism” affecting our politics was a deep threat to democratic politics in this country, and I entirely concur with that and with views expressed by other Members who have spoken on that theme this afternoon. In my view that is the biggest challenge of our time.
This is not the occasion to spell out all that is necessary to deal with that challenge, but I will highlight four themes that seem to me important. First is that Parliament must be more vigorous in asserting its power in scrutinising and holding the Government to account. We had a good example of that today, and for me there has been a wonderful symmetry about it. This is my last day in the House, and on my first day in 1986 I had the unusual experience of participating as a newly elected Back-Bench Member in a vote that defeated the then Government—who had a majority of 170—in the Second Reading debate on one of its flagship policies. Today has also been unusual, and I hope that the experience of the House standing up to Government is followed more vigorously and effectively in future as that would be good for our democracy.
Secondly, we must be more effective in devolving power. I am proud to have been part of a Government who did a lot in the way of devolution, and I played a small role in devolution in London to the Greater London authority. We failed, however, to address effective devolution in England, and that hugely important issue must be addressed in the next Parliament if we are to safeguard the future of the United Kingdom and have a Parliament that represents the whole country but does not try to micro-manage it. One lesson for the Government is that we need to do less and do it better. If we devolve more powers that are currently discharged here to sub-regional, regional and local authorities, we can ensure that those authorities have more say over matters that should be determined locally, and we will also work better here because we will be less fixated on the minutiae of government.
Thirdly, the Government must be more serious about governing well. That means being rigorous about policy development on evidence base rather than political prejudice, and more open to scrutiny in the way legislation passes through Parliament. In my view, much of that is currently not as effective as it should be. We should also end the annual reshuffle of Ministers. The ministerial merry-go-round is a serious challenge to good government because it simply denies people with expertise and experience built up over some years the opportunity to influence and shape the future of policy making.
Finally, we must better engage the public here and locally with our work and procedures. Too often, our procedures are arcane and difficult to understand, or they invite contempt. I wholly concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about the urgent need to reform Prime Minister’s questions, which I am afraid does the House no credit at all. We must also think about how we engage people more effectively at local level and help to break down some of their sense that politics is done by people who are apart from them, rather than part of a process in which they are engaged.
In conclusion, I express my heartfelt thanks to the many people, not least the electorate of Greenwich and Woolwich, who have given me the opportunity to represent them over the past 23 years. I also thank the many colleagues, officers and staff of the House whose friendship, support and advice has made possible the contribution that I have been able to make over these years. I am deeply grateful to have had the privilege.
Deregulation Bill
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
I will provide more explanation in a few minutes. I hope that it will satisfy my hon. Friend, but I suspect that it may not. We will have to wait and see. One point is that this is an issue only in London. I am not aware of a huge number of problems associated with it outside London. Perhaps there are such problems, but they certainly have not been drawn to my attention. The proposals will simply bring the approach in London into line with that in the rest of the country.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I did not quite follow the Minister’s argument. He accepted the fact that London is different and that there is strong feeling about it in London, but he proceeded to say that the Government therefore want to make London like the rest of the country. I am afraid that that is a non sequitur. If there is a problem in London, the Government must address it by accepting it and listening to the views of the local authorities and others in London who have clear experience of it and are saying that what the Government propose is wrong.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing me. What I should have said is that I am hearing the concerns about London expressed in this debate, but there are no restrictions of such a nature and I am not aware of its causing a significant issue outside London. I will come on to explain why the Government support the proposals and why we believe that the safeguards, which I am sure he wants, are sufficient to deal with any concerns of London MPs.
At present, Londoners would be in breach of section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 were they to use their residential premises as temporary sleeping accommodation without planning permission, because the Act stipulates that letting a residential property for less than 90 consecutive nights is a material change of use and thus requires planning permission. Not obtaining such permission means risking a fine of £20,000.
The Government published a policy paper on the short-term use of residential property on 9 February. It takes into account the representations we received following the publication last year of the discussion document on property conditions in the private rented sector, as well as our discussions with London local authorities, the industry and Members of both Houses.
Following that, the Government tabled a number of amendments in the other place to update the existing legislation and ensure that we provide appropriate freedom for London residents, broadly in line with that enjoyed by residents across the rest of the country. Alongside the new freedoms, we have sought to provide important safeguards to prevent the abuse of the reforms and, crucially, to prevent any opportunity for commercial letting on an ongoing or permanent basis, about which I am sure Labour Members are concerned.
Mr Raynsford
I, too, intend to speak about the provisions on short-term lettings. I very much endorse the views that were ably expressed by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). There is cross-party agreement and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with a measure which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) rightly identified, does not address a problem because there is no problem. It will simply create a series of difficulties and aggravate problems that are obvious to many of us who have looked at the subject and which are increasing exponentially because of the changing character of the lettings market in London.
Before I proceed, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have been well rehearsed already. This is not just a problem for central London. In my constituency, Greenwich and Woolwich, there is a lot of evidence of problems of exactly this nature. We have some major tourist attractions, such as the O2, which attract people for individual events, and the availability of very short lettings—one or two nights—is an obvious attractive additional factor for people thinking of coming to such an event. There are significant numbers of short-term lettings which have the effect, as my hon. Friends have highlighted, first, of eroding permanent lettings because properties are converted from permanent lettings to short-term lettings, and secondly, in certain circumstances, attracting antisocial behaviour and behaviour which is very damaging to existing residents of the blocks being used, where properties are being converted for such short-term lettings.
There was a murder recently in a property in Erebus drive in West Thamesmead, not in the central area of Greenwich, which is perhaps more attractive to tourism, but an area to the eastern edge of my constituency. The matter is under investigation so I shall be cautious in what I say, but the evidence that I have seen is that it involved a very short letting—for only two nights, I think—and a party which attracted people from a wide area, including the west midlands. In the course of an altercation that evidently developed at the party, one individual lost their life.
Such a situation is hugely damaging to the community’s confidence in its homes if it finds that properties can be subject to such short-term letting with very little check on who has taken out the letting. These are short-term agreements and they are not subject to the kinds of checks that reputable landlords would carry out before deciding whether to let premises to an individual. That in itself is bad enough, but where individual lettings take place for a short period and properties are advertised, people come from far afield, resulting in huge antisocial behaviour with noise late at night, causing nuisance to residents. These are the consequences of what the Government seek to do. They are already a problem, but at least local authorities have powers at the moment to act. If the Government proceed with their proposals, those powers will be seriously restricted. It will not be possible to take action unless it can be established that the property has been used for this purpose for more than 90 nights. That in itself will be a difficult task to establish, as the City of Westminster made clear in its evidence to us.
This is a measure that has the seeds of all sorts of problems and difficulties, and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with it against the overwhelming views of the informed public in London. This is not a partisan case. Political parties across the board have agreed that proper regulatory arrangements need to be in place to allow the control of such lettings and to prevent the kinds of abuses that I have highlighted. There is also widespread support from residents groups in many areas of London, including my own. Against all that evidence and with an extraordinary lack of evidence to support what the Government are doing, I hope that common sense will prevail and that they will agree to pull back and accept the amendments, at least to allow greater control and safeguards, and to avoid some of the consequences that we fear will happen as a result of this ill-conceived measure.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not want to repeat what others have said but rather to address a specific local issue for me concerning the area around Heathrow airport. I have had representations from all the major hotels along the Bath road around Heathrow and from the local community, and I have seen representations from London Councils. I will describe the area as it now is, because I am worried that this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of retaining any form of community around the Heathrow villages. With the threat of the third runway, Sipson is already three-quarters bought by Heathrow Airport Ltd and rented out on licences of, I believe, no more than two years, which is destabilising for the community anyway. There is a massive expansion of buy-to-lets. All of us can identify buy-to-lets in our constituencies by their unkempt gardens, the lack of repair, and the occasional mattress dumped outside. With this legislation there will be further destabilisation of the community and further short-term lettings.
Who asked for this change in legislation? What was the enormous demand? Who was banging at the doors of the ministerial office to change the system, which may not be working brilliantly but which at least gives local authorities in their local areas some local tools that they can use against the adverse effects of short-term letting that we have had described today? I cannot see the benefits to any but a small commercial niche that seeks to profit at the expense of the wider community. I am fearful of the impact on legitimate traders as it is. I am worried about the impact on the hotels along the Bath road, which are a source of employment to my local community. But in addition to that, the average hotel in my area employs between 200 and 250 staff. Many of those staff live within the local community in private rented properties. I am worried that this will affect the private rented market in my area and have a knock-on effect on staff who are not the highest paid and sometimes fairly low paid.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I, appropriately, at the start of this contribution refer to my interests as listed in the register? I should also at the outset make it clear that I have had second jobs throughout the time that I have served as a Member of Parliament. Before I was elected as MP for Greenwich in 1992, I ran a small business offering housing consultancy services—so the Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who believes Opposition Members do not have business experience is not correct—and that reflected my own career in housing over the previous 20 years. I sold that business when I was elected to the House, but remained as a consultant to the organisation that bought the business until I became a Minister in 1997. From 1997 to 2005 I served as a Minister in the Department that is now known as the Department for Communities and Local Government—it would take up too much of my five minutes to list its various names when I was a Minister there. That was the hardest-working second job I had by a long way during my time here.
After I left Government I accepted invitations to undertake work—some paid, some without remuneration— from organisations operating in fields in which I had previous professional experience or relevant skills. All were referred to, and approved by, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which considers applications from former Ministers proposing to take on outside interests. It is worth quoting the opening paragraph of the guidance issued by the Committee at the time:
“It is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience in government should be able to move into business or into other areas of public life.”
It went on to talk about the necessary safeguards to ensure propriety, but that statement of the public interest was very clear and the Leader of the House referred to it in his comments about the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
I have never allowed my outside interests, which are all properly declared, to interfere with, or inhibit, my parliamentary and constituency work. They certainly demanded a lot less time than my responsibilities as a Front-Bench spokesman for my party in Opposition and as a Minister between 1997 and 2005.
As I am standing down at the next election, my party’s proposals, as referred to in the motion and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), will not affect me personally, so I hope I can offer a reasonably impartial analysis of their likely impact. It is certainly right that we should be debating this issue as there is genuine public concern that MPs should act in the public interest, and should not abuse their position by undertaking inappropriate activity on behalf of lobbyists or organisations seeking improperly to secure an advantage. I stress the word “improperly” because it is also right that organisations, whether commercial or not, which want to influence Parliament should be able to speak freely with MPs and have relationships with supporters in this House. I myself, in the voluntary sector before I was elected in 1992, had frequent contacts with MPs and Ministers in order to pursue issues relating to the voluntary organisation I was involved with, which was promoting policies and practices to achieve better housing outcomes and more effective relief for the homeless.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman says, and I congratulate him on his involvement in so many other activities which are a great help to his work in this Chamber. What advice would he give to somebody who owns a business that they cannot sell, however? I am a farmer, and the only way for me to remove myself from the business completely would be either to sell the farm completely or move out of it all together. What advice would he give people like me?
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific issue and I will refer later to one or two circumstances that seem to me to be not well covered by the terms set out in the motion. I hope he will bear with me until I get there.
When I was in the voluntary sector, one of the observations often made by my colleagues working in the housing world was that MPs, as generalists, had only a limited knowledge and understanding of the often complex and technical rules that applied to their clients—members of the public—and the frequent refrain I heard was “If only they could spend time working with us, then they would better understand the issue.” I therefore want to emphasise at the outset the importance of not acting in ways that might inhibit or restrict proper links and relationships between MPs and the wider world.
The motion states that, as part of a regulatory framework for MPs’ second jobs, following the next general election no MP should be permitted to hold “paid directorships or consultancies.” It is not clear to me what the logic of that is. What is the difference between a paid directorship or consultancy and a contract to write a book or an article, or a payment for practising as a lawyer or a doctor, or a fee for providing a piece of expert advice? Is it the payment that is the problem? If so, the motion is far too narrow as it would leave open all kinds of opportunities for MPs to receive payment for remunerated activities other than those described as directorships or consultancies. If the problem is not the payment but is instead the relationship implied by the directorship or consultancy, why should a paid directorship of an organisation with a remit that clearly involves public interest objectives, such as the construction of social and affordable housing, be banned whereas a remunerated relationship other than a directorship or consultancy with a profit-making organisation pursuing entirely private interests would appear to be acceptable?
One of the arguments advanced by those who wish to curtail MPs’ outside interests is that the MP’s job is a full-time one and their constituents deserve their full-time attention. I wholly agree.
Charlie Elphicke
The right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in housing is well known. Does he find that he can bring that expertise to bear in the House?
Mr Raynsford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, and I was going to come to that point, although my time is very limited.
I wholly agree that MPs should be working assiduously for their constituents and putting in the necessary time to fulfil all their constituency and parliamentary responsibilities. In my experience the vast majority of MPs do that; they work hard and conscientiously, putting in far longer hours than would be expected in most other jobs.
Over my 20-plus years in this place, I have consistently worked very long hours, dealing with a huge volume of constituency correspondence, holding six advice surgeries every month, and sustaining a busy programme of visits and activities in the constituency. We all, I believe, try to do our best to represent our constituencies and constituents and are probably doing more such work today than at any time in Parliament’s history. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth referred to Hugh Dalton in his introductory remarks. I am told that when Lord Palmerston was invited to become a Member by the landowner who controlled the constituency he was “elected” for, it was on the condition that he never, repeat never, appeared in the constituency.
Things have moved on a lot since then, but if it were truly suspected that MPs were not adequately pulling their weight, we ought to have measures to restrict the demands of their parliamentary second jobs such as Front-Bench and ministerial responsibilities or chairmanships of Select Committees. That would be absolutely absurd, and I genuinely do not think that it is an issue.
My final point is about the representativeness of this House. People have expressed real fears that we are increasingly becoming a professionalised House of Commons with fewer opportunities for people in mid-career to come into this House bringing expertise from outside. I fear this measure would accelerate that process.
Business of the House
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I hope that my hon. Friend will apply for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, or indeed on the Floor of the House. Network Rail needs to be made much more accountable than it is at the moment, and its corporate governance structure is obscure to say the least. If we get that right, we will be better able to hold it to account on the specific issues she mentions.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In a Westminster Hall debate on 28 June, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, speaking about his new fixed-term social housing tenancies, said:
“I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place, that two years is to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 212WH.]
Because some of us are a little cynical about Government pledges on “exceptional circumstances” following our experiences with higher education fees, I pressed the Minister on this point and was assured that there would be provision in the regulations to be issued by the Government. The Leader of the House will not be at all surprised at my horror when I saw the draft regulations appear less than two weeks later with no such provision and, even more so, when I saw a copy of a letter sent by the Minister to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who had secured the debate, stating that he had no intention of giving effect to this pledge. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is completely out of order for a Minister to give a pledge in a parliamentary debate and then break it within a matter of weeks without coming to the House to explain himself, and will he ensure that the Minister answers for this issue in the House before it rises for the summer recess?
Sir George Young
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point seriously. He and I have a mutual interest in housing matters and I know how important security of tenure is to tenants. He will understand that I would like to make some inquiries about the exchange that has taken place, as I do not keep myself as up to date on housing matters as I used to, but I will convey his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister and see whether we can get a reply to him addressing those concerns before the House rises.
Business of the House (Thursday)
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
The point that my hon. Friend has just made illustrates clearly why we need more time tomorrow to examine the position of the Liberal Democrats, in all their splendour.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Is there not a wider and more profound issue at stake here? It relates to legislation, or changes in the law, that are railroaded through this House without adequate time for debate, and what happens when the public outside do not believe that this House has been doing its job properly and scrutinising those changes in the law. When such legislation—the classic example of which was the poll tax—is carried, it will never command the support of the public and the public will never believe that it is being instituted for the right reasons. Are the Government not in real danger of repeating the disaster of the poll tax with this ill-conceived, railroaded piece of legislation on tuition fees?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend speaks with unique authority and force on that subject. He is giving the House a very clear warning, because if people do not feel that the House of Commons—their elected representatives—has been given adequate time to debate this very profound change, they will be even more angry than they are already.
Business of the House
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has campaigned for a higher quality of postal service in his constituency. Modernisation must not be held up as an excuse for poor service. However, I will raise this issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who has responsibility for postal affairs. Our legislative proposals that are going through Parliament are designed to drive up the quality of postal services.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will recall that a week ago I pressed him about the non-appearance of the localism Bill, which one of his right hon. colleagues announced would be published imminently. The Leader of the House was more cautious and said only that it would be published shortly. He has not said anything further about it today, but there was a mysterious reference in his statement to the Second Reading of “a Bill” on 15 December. Will he tell the House whether that mysterious Bill is the localism Bill? Is his coyness connected to the shambolic preparation of that Bill in the Department for Communities and Local Government?
Sir George Young
There is no shambles anywhere in the administration of this coalition Government. However, I have to say that the gestation period for the localism Bill has been a little longer than anticipated. Last week, I said that it would appear shortly, and it will appear very shortly. I hope that it will be before the House well before Christmas.
Business of the House
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has been in touch with President Lee of South Korea, making clear this country’s condemnation of the unprovoked North Korean attack and offering condolences for the loss of life that has occurred. My right hon. Friend also agreed that we would work together on the next steps that need to be taken in the United Nations Security Council. We are now indeed in discussions with our Security Council partners on those next steps.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In Communities and Local Government questions earlier this morning, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), indicated that the localism Bill was likely to be published imminently. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the House, but I heard no reference to the localism Bill in the business announced for the next two weeks. Given that the Government are clearly having increasing difficulty matching their actions to their words, will the Leader of the House tell us the meaning of “imminent” and whether we can expect a debate on this rather important and controversial Bill before Christmas?
Sir George Young
The Bill will be published shortly. Second Reading will follow after a decent interval.
Business of the House
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The second half of the question is easy: it should be in Backbench Business Committee time. On the first part, the House of Commons Commission has made it clear that over the period of the spending review we should reduce our costs by at least 17.5%. The House will have seen a document circulated by the Clerk of the House, outlining some possible economies—although that does not cover the IPSA budget, which comes under a separate heading.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that yesterday in the High Court the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was found to have acted unlawfully in revoking regional spatial strategies. Rather than come to this House to apologise for his unlawful actions, for the damage he has caused to the housing industry, for confusing local authorities and for the cost to the public purse, the Secretary of State simply slipped out a written statement, misleadingly claiming that nothing much had changed. In reality, everything has changed: regional spatial strategies are back in force and, as the judgment makes clear, they might play a decisive role in determining any planning application, as local authorities must have regard to them. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time so that the Secretary of State can account for his actions and the restored force of regional spatial strategies can be affirmed?
Sir George Young
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the written ministerial statement, which said:
“While respecting the court’s decision, this ruling changes very little”.
It went on to say that the chief planner had written to all the local planning authorities, confirming that they should
“have regard to this material consideration in any decisions they are currently taking”.—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 16WS.]
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that later this month we will introduce the localism Bill, which will abolish regional strategies.
Business of the House
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the loss of jobs in her constituency. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will shortly make a statement. If she stays in her place, she may have an opportunity to put her question directly to him.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On 20 October, the Prime Minister, responding to my question, said that
“house building was lower in every year of the last Government than it was under the previous Conservative Government.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 946.]
That is simply not true. After checking with the Library, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 21 October, providing detailed statistical evidence to demonstrate the error, inviting him to put the record straight. The Leader of the House will be aware that the ministerial code of conduct, the most recent version of which was issued in May this year by the Prime Minister, says that
“it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
I regret to tell the House that the Prime Minister has failed to correct the error to date and, indeed, despite a reminder, has not even responded to my letter. Will the Leader of the House draw the Prime Minister’s attention to this matter and remind him of his obligation to abide by the terms of his own code of conduct?
Sir George Young
I will pass the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure he will get a response to his letter, but I have to say that the last Government’s housing record was appalling. House building is at its lowest peacetime level since 1924; waiting lists for social housing have almost doubled; and the average number of affordable housing units built or purchased slumped by more than a third under Labour, compared with under the last Conservative Government.
Backbench Business Committee
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
At the end of the day, it is of course up to the House to deal with the matter. The Chief Whip is as my brother on these matters. If the hon. Gentleman reads the coalition agreement, he will see a clear commitment to implementing the Wright Committee recommendations in full. That is in the coalition agreement and that is why we want the review—to make further progress towards full implementation.
In February, the previous Parliament resolved that the new Parliament should have an early opportunity to decide on the issue of September sittings—indeed, sufficiently early to be able to decide on them this year. Motion 10 gives effect to that decision.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has made a great argument on the importance of increasing the powers of the House as against the Executive. Does he not consider it ironic, therefore, that he is proposing, in motion 10, that in order to reaffirm
“the importance of its function of holding the Government to account”
the House should ask
“the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”?
Should the Back-Bench business committee not have been invited to consider whether September sittings are appropriate, and if so, to come forward with proposals for how they should be organised?