Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Beresford Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We did have that conversation not so many years ago—it was described as a once-in-a-generation referendum—and we discussed this last week. I think what the people of Scotland want is for us to be working constructively together to focus on their priorities. That is indeed what we are doing in the hon. Gentleman’s own area: we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in a growth deal and ensuring that with the new concert hall we can enshrine Edinburgh’s reputation as a city of culture.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen
Paul Beresford Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I was visited by a number of my constituents yesterday. I had forgotten what we were there to discuss and so had they. All they could talk about was the Queen. They were sad to begin with and then they moved on to positive things. Their condolences were combined with really positive feelings for her.
At the end of 1953, the Queen and the Duke visited New Zealand—New Zealand is as far away as you can get from Buckingham Palace without coming back. It is still heavily royal, and it certainly was at that time. Public reaction to the visit was so positive that I suddenly realised—even though I was only knee-high to a grasshopper—that there was a very important person called “the Queen”. The Queen and Prince Philip had a really positive following when they arrived just before Christmas, which they had greatly engendered as a result of their sympathetic and instant positive reaction in response to the Tangiwai disaster. What happened was that the royal couple arrived in New Zealand on 23 December, and, the following day, Christmas eve 1953, a railway bridge over the Tangiwai gorge collapsed, and it collapsed just as a heavily loaded express train rolled onto it. The locomotive and the first six carriages were derailed and went into the river, killing 151 people. The tour stopped. The royal couple were involved in all the sympathy, the memorials, and meeting the people—those who had lost relatives and those who had survived. Their position in New Zealand rose higher than you could possibly imagine. What happened really solidified the very strong standing that they had in the eyes of the New Zealand public—whether they were Pākehā or Māori. They charmed their way across the country. Many Members have talked today or yesterday about the Commonwealth, and that was the way the Queen became the linchpin of the Commonwealth. She charmed her way with Presidents, Prime Ministers and the people of those 56 nations and the 2.5 billion people who make up the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is vital to our position and to some sanity on this Earth. We now look to our new King to continue the Queen’s success. It is a huge job. I wish him well because he is filling some huge shoes that were worn by a very small, but enormously successful, lady. I wish him well and pray that it works as well as it did with his mother.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Beresford Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue on behalf of his constituents. As he will know, a local authority may alter a green belt boundary only in exceptional circumstances. In our housing White Paper, we were very clear that this means
“when they…have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting…identified development”
needs. Of course, that includes looking at and building on brownfield sites. In the case of Guildford, I understand that the local plan was submitted for examination earlier this month, and of course it will be examined by an independent inspector for soundness in due course. I can assure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right that we want to ensure that green belt is protected.
Record Copies of Acts
Paul Beresford Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on initiating the debate. It has forced me to do an awful lot of homework and get hold of some real facts and figures, so that I can pass them on to the House as they have been presented to me.
Vellum has been used to record Acts of Parliament for only about 170 years. The oldest surviving parliamentary records are on parchment, which is a very similar material. The oldest surviving archival paper records date back to 1510, which is just 13 years short of the date of the oldest parchment record. Those paper records are the manuscript journals of the House of Lords. It appears to me, on the basis of viewing and research, that records kept on vellum and those kept on archival paper in the same environment last equally well.
Mr James Gray
My hon. Friend is trying to make a distinction between vellum and parchment, but they are, of course, the same thing. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines vellum as fine parchment.
Sir Paul Beresford
I am obviously talking too quickly, because, in effect, that is what I said: they are much the same.
Sir Paul Beresford
Before 1849, all Acts were written out by hand on rolls of parchment, in exquisite handwriting; it is really worth seeing. The motion refers to a resolution of both Houses dated 12 February 1849. At the core of that resolution was a proposed move from beautiful handwritten copies to the then cutting-edge innovation of printing. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes that we could return to handwritten copies on vellum, as they do look beautiful. In 1999, the House of Lords announced that it wished to cease printing public Acts on vellum, having ceased to print private Acts on it in 1956. Two copies of each Act of Parliament are printed on vellum. One is kept in the Parliamentary Archives, and the other is sent to the National Archives.
The amount of money that would be saved by a move from vellum to archival paper has been disputed, but in the grand picture of public expenditure, it is not enormously significant. It is worth observing that we expect the saving to be more than the salary of a single Member of Parliament, which many of us probably consider not to be that great anyway. The National Archives has helpfully informed Parliament that it does not require vellum, and as it is part of the Minister’s departmental portfolio, I must take notice of that.
Vellum is an extremely expensive material, requiring an expensive and specialised form of printing. The cost of printing the Acts of 2014-15 on vellum—I asked about this specifically, in order to try to get it right—was approximately £107,000. The cost of using even the most expensive parchment-style paper would have been £8,000, a reduction of 92%. Unfortunately, however, the challenges associated with printing on vellum do not stop there.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), there are precisely two surviving printing machines that print double-sided on vellum to the standard that is required—note: to the standard that is required. One is in a museum, and the other is owned or utilised by the contract printer, but to put it colloquially, it is on its last legs and is probably being held together by Sellotape. Therefore, if the decision were made to continue to print public Acts on vellum, my opposite number in the House of Lords would have to provide a business case for a contract with the firm that was prepared to construct a new printer. The cost of that would leave Parliament contracted to a single supplier, which would negate the normal practice of competitive tendering.
Michael Ellis
If we put that one supplier out of business, it is not just parliamentary Acts that will be affected. I understand from the Office of the Chief Rabbi that the Torahs used in this country are not in fact made here, but if that one supplier were to close down because Parliament stopped using it, Torahs and many other non-parliamentary items would not be able to be made here, and the work would have to be exported elsewhere.
Sir Paul Beresford
I have not had words with the Chief Rabbi, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made inquiries and we are just one of the contracts for this particular contractor. If we stopped using him, his profits would go down but he would not close.
During these complex discussions, the Minister for the Cabinet Office came along with his chequebook. I was surprised, as someone who has enthusiastically endorsed his admirable policies on cutting out waste, reducing red tape and improving Government efficiency. His Department believes that we should be “digital by default”, but that is a little different from what he is now talking about. A similar approach has been taken by the House; we also have everything digitised.
However, it is a legal requirement that quality prints of the original Acts be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords—the legal authority. Moreover, most modern Acts of Parliament are brought into force by statutory instruments at some point after receiving Royal Assent, and no statutory instruments are printed on vellum. The relevant information is available digitally.
I have huge respect for the Minister’s campaign, as he is aware. I must point out that we digitally store the Acts, and that he has ensured that if anything were to happen to the paper or vellum archive, the Acts could be reprinted.
Mr James Gray
My hon. Friend talks about the cloud. How confident is he that the cloud will be here in 5,000 years, when vellum most certainly will be?
Sir Paul Beresford
I will not be here in 5,000 years; my teeth will have gone long before that. However, my hon. Friend’s question ignores the fact that there will be progress. I doubt that we will be storing anything in the form that we do now, be it on vellum, on paper or digitally. There will be another way.
I was encouraged by the Minister’s offer to cover the cost of printing on vellum. For a moment, I thought he was offering a blank cheque to pay for all the printing in the House of Commons, because it would be logical to extend the offer in that way. I am not particularly well educated on the constitution, however, and it was pointed out to me forcefully that it would be inappropriate for the Government to play that kind of role in the business of Parliament. Of course, the Minister and the Cabinet Office could choose to fund the purchase of the material, the equipment and the managing of the contract, as well as the long-term storage, if they wished to produce their own copies on vellum from the digital records. Unfortunately, the record of Acts produced by Parliament, on whatever medium is chosen, are the legal authority. The Minister has been gracious in his benevolent offer, but it is not appropriate.
The printing of Acts over many years has changed as time and technology have progressed. We have moved from parchment to vellum to paper, and from handwriting to printing, all of which now have a digital back-up. The only recent backward step that I can think of has been the Ed stone, but that was just an unfortunate incident. I conclude simply by noting that, of the two Houses, it is the one that we would expect to make a stand purely on tradition that is suggesting to the House of Commons that we should progress.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: with vellum, we know it will last. It has already stood the test of time, as any historian or archivist will verify, through its continued existence over centuries. With paper, we can only guess how long a printed version will last; it depends on precisely what paper is used, what ink is used and how the resulting document is stored.
Sir Paul Beresford
I had better repeat what I said earlier. In this House we have been recording on parchment equivalent since 1497 and on paper from 13 years later. Having looked at the paper, the parchment and the vellum, I can say that they look the same.
Sir Paul Beresford
My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I suggest he goes and looks.
Chris Skidmore
I want to talk from my own professional experience as a historian. Someone who goes to the National Archives and tries to order up SP1—the state papers of Henry VIII—will find that they are not allowed to do so. They will only be able to look at those on microfilm, because the paper is so fragile that it will crumble if touched. I have opened boxes and been amazed at how many documents have still not been looked at, but I know that paper from the 15th and 16th centuries is so fragile that it would crumble to the touch, and often those documents have to be returned unopened. That is not the case with vellum. People can order up stuff that is still in its original leather bag. It will be filthy but it remains there and people can study it, using ultraviolet light. That is the contrast I have seen as a historian. What if in 500 or 1,000 years’ time future generations of historians have this problem? It is simply not true to equate paper and vellum.
Europe’s leading expert on the subject, Dr Henk Porck of the Netherlands national library, has gone on record as saying that current ageing tests for paper
“cannot be reliably predicted by means of the present artificial ageing tests.”
When it comes to printing our country’s laws, arguably our most important documents, we need to ensure that we have a clear assurance that the materials they are printed on will last the test of centuries, as vellum has. Paper-printed Acts of Parliament may last a long time—I do agree that they last a significant amount of time—but it is not long enough, and we need all the details of what is being proposed.
There has also been significant debate about the cost of using vellum and the prospective savings from printing future Acts of Parliament on paper. On 19 January, in a letter to the Archives and Records Association, Lord Laming, the Chairman of Committees, explained that the cost of printing Acts of Parliament is about £103,000 a year, yet we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has said, that the only remaining UK firm involved in this, William Cowley Ltd in Milton Keynes, receives a maximum of £47,000 a year from selling vellum to Parliament. That means that associated costs are around £56,000 a year. Lord Laming stated in his letter to the ARA that the expected cost of printing future Acts on paper, including the paper itself, is around £20,000 a year, so there is still a discrepancy between £20,000 and £30,000. It would be good to know precisely what the saving is meant to be.
We know from specialists in the sector, including the ARA, that the cost of printing on vellum and paper should be roughly the same. It has been confirmed to the ARA by specialist printers, including the Gregynog Press and the Westerham Press, that current costs of printing on vellum could be achieved for much less. People who work with vellum say that printing techniques have come a long way in recent years. They add that letterpress, litho and screen-printing are all used successfully for vellum and parchment, and they should know. Yet the Chairman of Committees has said:
“Vellum requires a specialist and time-consuming printing process, and uses equipment which is not used for any other purpose. It is firmly expected to be significantly cheaper to print on quality archival paper.”
We have a difference of opinion here. First, will the Chairman of Committees set out the proactive efforts that he and previous incumbents have made to consult members of the heritage community on printing as it relates to vellum? Secondly, will he explain how often the contract for printing Acts of Parliament on vellum has been put out to tender, and—if known—what bids came in? Thirdly, will he publish the full cost-benefit assessment that he and his colleagues have carried out on this matter? We need this in order to give the issue proper scrutiny in this place, and for wider public transparency.
We all want to see value for money, but we should also be aware of false economies. Parliament should not subsidise vellum manufacture, but we should be mindful of the future cost of archival facilities, given the fragility of paper and the potential risk of damage to such important documents. We should also consider the impact on our conservation sector if the current Cowley contract is stopped.
Vellum, like sheepskin parchment, has played a key part at key points in the history of these islands in recording our most important events. Its continuous use over centuries should cause all Members to pause in sober reflection on the fact that we, as legislators, are the inheritors not just of a tradition of preserving our laws on vellum, but of a seamless legal tradition that goes back centuries. George Macaulay Trevelyan once wrote:
“The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are to-day, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing after another, gone as utterly as we shall shortly be gone as ghost at cock crow.”
We, too, will be gone. We will be replaced by new generations of Members, and become footnotes to the past. If we are to govern in prose, we should at least allow ourselves, in our responsibilities to generations to come, to be reminded that the poetry of history matters.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow that Ciceronian example of oratory from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on their work.
I wish to address a point that I feel has been somewhat overlooked: these proposals represent the thin end of the wedge, and a general direction of travel away from physical storage and towards a digital-only future that I would want to avoid. I was concerned to read in a written answer from 9 November last year that in addition to reassurances that archive paper is a sufficient replacement for vellum—a claim I dispute—further reassurance was offered that Parliament maintains a comprehensive database of legislation, both “as originally enacted” and “as amended” on the website www. legislation.gov.uk. I took that as a sign that some think that web-based archives can be the equivalent of hard copies, but they are not, for the simple reason that technology evolves far too quickly to serve as a permanent record for any sensible length of time. New and “better” devices and file formats come on the market every month, and it takes only a few years for technology to become redundant. If I handed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a copy of your maiden speech from 1997 on a floppy disk, would you be able to access it readily? I doubt that you would, and let us not even begin thinking about transferring documents between PC and Apple formats.
Many computer devices that are sold now do not even feature CD-drives, such is the fashion for online storage—the “cloud”. While online storage might be the current flavour of the decade and it works fine for now, such is the pace of change that I ask whether we can really expect information to be stored sufficiently in that format in 10 or 20 years, let alone in 500 or 1,000 years. If we are not cautious, we could soon be facing a new digital dark age in which accessing digital files from a few years earlier will prove trickier and trickier.
Sir Paul Beresford
One difficulty is that although the law is printed on vellum, its implementation is done through statutory instruments, which are printed on paper and kept digitally. The other interesting thing that I have found—being old enough—is that digital records are changed and moved as we go on with digital invention.
William Wragg
My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting points, although whether we should print the deliberations of statutory instrument Committees on vellum is a moot point.
I simply warn about this digital dark age that will soon be sweeping over us. We should resist the change and hold on to an established, prestigious, and time-tested physical form of record storage—the premier form of record storage which, of course, is vellum.
I am fortunate enough to have the honour that my private Member’s Bill has been passed by the House. It is currently making its way through the other place but, if these proposals go ahead, I could add to that honour the somewhat more dubious one that should my Bill receive Royal Assent, it could become one of the last few Acts of Parliament to be recorded on vellum.
Sir Paul Beresford
May I inform my hon. Friend that since 1956 that has been what happens? I am sorry, but if he gets his Bill through, it will not be on vellum.
William Wragg
I am hugely disappointed. I wonder whether I would be able to ask the fine procurer of vellum in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), to print the Act. I would be happier to forgo the honour of having my Act of Parliament printed on vellum if I knew that future Acts would be printed on vellum.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
It falls to this House to debate issues both large and small. Today’s debate has shown that this issue is both large and small: large because the question of how, as a Parliament and as a country, we record the sovereign laws of our land, and whether we should protect the traditions by which we have done this for many centuries, is of great importance; and small because the financial sums involved and the savings offered by the change that we are debating are but a minuscule fraction of the overall cost of government.
I want to be clear that this is, first and foremost, a House matter. Should the House carry the motion today, I hope that we can work with the other place to find a path forward that both Houses find satisfactory. In that spirit of pragmatism, the Government have offered financial support from other savings, without further burdening taxpayers, to ensure that this tradition, which is of great symbolic and practical value, is not irrecoverably broken by a lack of funding on this small scale.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on his tireless campaigning. I have been buoyed by the support that we have received from across the House and, indeed, the other place. The case was set out powerfully by him, by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and by many Members across the House.
Sir Paul Beresford
It is absolutely inappropriate for the Government to dictate to the Houses of Parliament by a payment. The way in which it should work is that the Houses decide and pass on the bill, as traditionally happens every year. The Minister should know that. To tell us that he will pay for one specific thing is inappropriate.
Matthew Hancock
This is indeed a matter for the House, and this House is just about to make sure that its view is well known.
The speech by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), the intervention by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) were incredibly powerful and persuasive. There are Members who sit on the Treasury Bench, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Devizes (Claire Perry), who would have spoken had convention not prevented them from doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made the case for abolition, but his speech ended up as a haggle about the costs. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) railed against the rule of law, ultimately, arguing that it was not worth preserving laws. Well, I think that the rule of law in this country is important and should be preserved.
House of Commons Members’ Fund (No. 2) Bill
Paul Beresford Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a little Bill—actually, it is a little littler than when it went into Committee—that will amend provisions for the House of Commons Members’ Fund. I extend my thanks to the numerous hon. Members, especially the trustees, and the Minister, who have supported the Bill through its various stages. I also thank the various officials who have supported it, including the actuary who helped my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and me to enable a distinct change to be made that will free the fund from the Treasury or, to put it another way, free the Treasury from the fund.
I suspect that few Members who are not trustees will be aware of the fund, apart from through the note about a small deduction on their monthly payslip from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The fund was established before the second world war, when there was no parliamentary pension to help former Members who had fallen into financial difficulties. It was used to top up pensions for the widows of Members who had left the House when widows received a lower entitlement, and has been used for a few isolated cases of hardship among former Members.
As the House will recognise from that description, as time has passed, the demand has dropped. In the last financial year the payments worked out at £137,000, but over the years the fund has grown to a considerable sum of approximately £6.5 million. At present, the fund is drawn from compulsory contributions from Members, earnings from its investments and an annual contribution from the Treasury of £215,000.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, the Treasury contribution will cease. That follows a suggestion that he made to that end. An actuarial estimate of the fund was undertaken, and hence his amendments were accepted in Committee. They will remove the requirement for the Treasury to donate to the fund.
The Bill will remove the requirement under the existing primary legislation for Members to make monthly contributions of £2. In effect, the trustees will be empowered to cease deducting contributions. Given the figures I have just stated, I suspect that they intend to do so immediately following Royal Assent, since the fund has, to put it simply, a considerable surplus. However, the Bill enables the trustees to recommend the resumption of contributions, if it is needed, up to a maximum of 0.2% of pay. The trustees may, if they wish, return any surplus funds to the Treasury. The trustees have requested that discretion.
The Bill will permit the acceptance of bequests and allow the trustees to make arrangements under which a commercial institution would undertake the commitments and/or liabilities of the fund. The Bill will extend the class of beneficiaries to all dependants of former Members who experience severe hardship.
The Bill will also remove the requirement for trustees to be current MPs. I am sure the House will agree that it seems sensible for the trustees to ask, for example, the Association of Former Members of Parliament to nominate one trustee. In addition, this provision will enable the trustees to get over the problem that arises when a number of Members who are trustees lose or vacate their seats at a general election. The Bill will allow such former MPs to remain as trustees temporarily, until they are replaced formally.
As I have said, this is a little Bill that tidies up the arrangements for the trustees in today’s world. I commend it to the House.
Recall of MPs Bill
Paul Beresford Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I said a few moments ago that it had not been possible, in good faith, for the Government to recommend an amendment that the House could responsibly be invited to support. Since further amendments or developments of the Bill are a matter for the House I will ensure that advice and help is provided, but these matters must be considered and there is no guarantee that a form can be found that avoids the practical difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s more fundamental point is a matter for this House and the other place, and any amendments would return to this House to be determined.
Let me set out some of the challenges in the new clauses, although some have been expressed already. The definition of misconduct is based on the common law offence in England and Wales, but its test is not just the criminal offence. As drafted, it could capture behaviour that would not be a criminal offence, including in an MP’s private affairs, and it would be for the court to judge whether certain behaviour in a Member’s private life amounted to misconduct. The election court would have to apply the test of whether the MP had committed
“misconduct to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust”.
I understand and appreciate the aim of linking misconduct to an MP’s standing in the eyes of the public, but as drafted it is a rather subjective test. The House will want to take a view on the kinds of evidence and analysis that a court might draw on to judge whether the public at large felt there had been a betrayal of trust, including where no criminal offence was alleged to have been committed.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that that position has been discussed by the House as it relates to the Committee on Standards, and it was rejected.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for that intervention. It is now clearly on the record and Members can reflect on the view taken by the Committee.
Let us consider the body that would make the judgment about alleged misconduct. Election courts are convened to consider cases that question the outcome of an election, and they do not meet unless a petition has been brought. At the end of the hearings, the court determines whether the election was valid or void, which can take several months to a year. The court has no investigative capacity but hears views from relevant parties. Giving this new role to an election court would mark a significant departure from current practice, and as I said, it lacks the capacity to launch an investigatory process. Furthermore, no appeal is provided for in the new clauses; indeed, the election court is not currently subject to appeal but only to limited judicial review. That raises the question of whether the election court model is the right basis for the proposal. If it is, I suspect that a number of questions could usefully be asked when fleshing out the detail, including whether there should be an appeals mechanism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge proposes to set the number of petitioners necessary for the election court to consider an allegation of misconduct at 500. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed it takes only one person to make a complaint and to have it investigated by the police. Arguably, if the complaint is valid, it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of popular will the House will want to take a view on the right number of petitioners. The new clause increases to 15% the percentage of electors who need to sign the petition to trigger recall, which is higher than for the other conditions. However, 500 is a lower threshold for the initial trigger.
If there are to be such additional triggers in the Bill, the House must consider whether to set out the relationships, or hierarchy, between the different recall conditions. An election court could look at issues that could also be considered by the Committee on Standards, which operates on a trigger, or by the police as the gateway to a criminal conviction. If the defence was rehearsed before an election court, or if the court’s finding was considered prejudicial to an MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for them to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in an election court could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
Finally, let me turn to the issue of parliamentary privilege. New clause 3 includes a provision stating that section 9 of the Bill of Rights will not be affected. I understand that this is intended to ensure that privileged matters are not the subject of judgment by the electoral court. However, the use of the word “affecting” could be read in one of two contradictory ways by a court: either as a statement that privilege matters are excluded; or as an admission that the Bill overrides the Bill of Rights, and therefore impacts on privilege but only for these limited purposes, thereby inviting an election court to consider privileged issues as part of a case. If an exclusion is desired, it could benefit from clarification.
In conclusion, the Government were clear on Second Reading that we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment. My intention has been to summarise and highlight some of the points the current drafting raises. It is right that the House votes in full knowledge of the technical and policy challenges that remain, as well as the principles behind the amendments. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the remaining part of this debate.
Cost of Living: Energy and Housing
Paul Beresford Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
It would be churlish of me not to thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for allowing me a few moments to reply to the debate. I always enjoy following him and thought that he was particularly on form today. I always look forward to his unique combination of Lady Bracknell and Joseph Stalin.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers—and, of course, sisters—are here to debate the Queen’s Speech, while our comrades in arms are 100 or so miles to the north marching the streets of Newark. I want to make it absolutely clear that if anybody in Newark is watching this debate on the parliamentary channel and has not been to vote yet, I would not be offended if they left immediately to do so.
Many people have spoken in the debate and, although I think it is quite unusual to do so the following day, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on an excellent speech. We all enjoyed it and never did I believe for a moment when we were putting through the Localism Act 2011 that it would eventually lead to a namesake of mine snuffling through the undergrowth of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I wish that mammal every success.
As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, apart from the wonderful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the speeches started with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) talking about heroic negligence. He is a distinguished lawyer, which I know to be a fact, because when my permanent secretary was the chief executive of a local authority, he tried to sue me for defamation and my hon. and learned Friend managed to save my house and my skin. I realise that he was teasing me terribly. I have looked and I can find no reference to heroic negligence. I am taking my courage in my hands to contradict a distinguished QC. As far as I can see, this is just a defence to a charge of negligence, where one can say one has done something in the common interest and shown unnecessary valour. That does not involve, as far as I can see, disappearing into a phone box and changing into an outfit where one wears one’s knickers over one’s shirt. I think we may be able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and other right hon. and hon. Members referred to the modern slavery Bill, as did my hon. and learned Friend. We are pleased with the support for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip mentioned that he had been to the 105th birthday of Sir Nicholas Winton, who is widely known in the House. It is appropriate that on this day, when we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Europe, we remember that Sir Nicholas was responsible for the liberation of many young people in the Kindertransport, and we wish him many more birthdays to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) welcomed the help for small businesses and spoke cogently about the problems of small businesses getting finance from the banks. He spoke also about a problem in his constituency, which I have shared. It is right that we are addressing that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said that it was massively important that we were bringing down the deficit and ensuring that personal and banking debt were reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) spoke about the Government’s many achievements and the excellent quality of housing in her constituency, which I had an opportunity to see recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) talked about the way we are dealing with the housing market, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) spoke about solar power and was a strong advocate of local power. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about recovering tax from tax avoidance schemes and what we were doing to deal with the deficit. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) managed to elicit from Labour that they wanted to out-Thatcher Thatcherites by going faster and deeper with the cuts, which I thought was amazingly interesting. He also spoke about the new jobs and better standards in schools, and talked interestingly about potholes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) gave strong support to the Union and made a persuasive case for turning the anger of the electorate into empowering the electorate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) talked about improving energy in building. I cannot look at a copy of the building regulations without thinking of him. The measures on small sites are not there to help the larger developers; they are to help small builders. As Opposition Members tried their best to bankrupt the housing sector, we are trying to get some builders back in.
We have heard a lot in this debate, but one thing is clear: an economy under the Opposition would mean an economy in reverse, a stifled rental market, a choked-off energy market, and an overtaxed labour market. In fact, it would be a miracle if any market was going in the right direction.
This Government have spent four years laying the foundation for a sure recovery by cutting Labour’s budget deficit, sticking to our long-term economic plan, and keeping taxes down for hard-working people. The Opposition may say that some grand Whitehall housing targets would make the difference, but we have heard that before from the previous Prime Minister. As soon as they were announced, with the curse of Jonah, the house-building programme plummeted under Labour. We have reversed Labour’s shameful housing market trend, which dragged us down to 1920s start levels. We have begun work on more than 445,000 houses since 2010. Planning permissions for 213,000 homes were put in place only last year. The Help to Buy equity loan scheme has helped more than 30,000 people to buy or reserve a new home—something I understand the Opposition now support. Home ownership is no longer a pipe dream but a reality for thousands of first-time buyers.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
A contribution in my constituency will be the local plan that my two local authorities are working on. One of the difficulties is the green belt, which is very precious to them. The current Planning Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and his immediate predecessor have emphasised that these sites could be removed from the green belt only in exceptional circumstances and that doing so in order to make up the housing site numbers was not exceptional. Unfortunately, some councils—I will not name them—are not heeding that advice, and apparently neither are some planning inspectors. Assuming that my right hon. Friend agrees with the Minister, would he be able to circulate this important message to local authorities as they develop their plans?
Mr Pickles
Yes, indeed. We did that, I think, as recently as a couple of months ago. An exceptional case has to be made for housing on green belt. We know from the Solihull case that an exceptional case has to be made not only in terms of taking things off the green belt but putting things on to it.
The Opposition claim that there are half a million unbuilt houses with planning permission due to land banking; indeed, we have just heard that. I have to say that that is not entirely correct. Some 90% of those houses are currently in the process of being built or are about to be started. Our reforms on planning conditions in the infrastructure Bill will help to speed up the process. We have taken a series of steps to kick-start stalled sites, such as scaling back unreasonable section 106 agreements—all measures that the Opposition have opposed.
This Government have turned Britain around. We are safeguarding the public finances, there are 1.5 million more people in work, income tax has been reduced for 24 million people, and the deficit is down by a third. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) wants to intervene, he should stand up and ask. [Interruption.] I will not give way at the moment.
This is the sort of decisive action that the Opposition can only dream of. Labour Members talk about the cost of living crisis and claim to understand it, but they failed to protect hard-working people when they had a chance. Instead, they doubled council tax, escalated fuel duty, and watched as building sites downed tools and shops were boarded up. In contrast, this Government are protecting people who want to get on and do the right thing by putting taxpayers at the heart of decision making.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Beresford Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General
The hon. Lady is quite right. We must rely on judges’ judiciousness in deciding what sentences should be. Occasionally there will be examples that are unduly lenient and fall within the specified schedule where I can make a reference. The object of the reference is not only to correct the particular sentence that has been passed but to try to lay down a good precedent for the future. It is noteworthy that we have referred fewer cases overall in the last 12 months than the 12 months before. That may be an indication of the extent to which the Sentencing Council is working to ensure consistency.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
What proportion of the 67 cases were for child sex abuse or child sex pornography in some form or other? Is the Attorney-General prepared to review the sentencing of those sorts of cases in terms of the sentences that are available?
The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend can be reassured that most of those cases will be referable and, indeed, I have referred such cases to the Court of Appeal. I am afraid that I cannot give him the statistics at the Dispatch Box but I will write to him with the statistics for the last 12 months.
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Paul Beresford Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I shall be succinct, as I am surrounded by people anxious to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Her last paragraph or so was exactly right and expresses how I have felt for some considerable time. Since I became a councillor in 1979, Margaret Thatcher has been someone we have looked to—not always looked up to, but certainly looked to.
My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) touched on Margaret Thatcher’s compassion and understanding for the people at the bottom, the lowly people—an aspect of her character that does not often come out, but which they certainly brought out. I found out about that myself, when I was a lowly London councillor having trouble with English, my second language. I had come from New Zealand, where politicians were at the bottom of the pile and where, if someone wanted to contact the Prime Minister, they looked his phone number up in the Wellington phonebook—according to mythology, it is still there.
Here, to my amazement, a polite request to see the Prime Minister, explained, was generally accepted. In my day as a councillor, many of the meetings I had with the Prime Minister at my request—some were at hers—went through my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who, as he has explained, was her political adviser. When it was the other way around, I could picture his face grinning on the phone as he said, “The Prime Minister would like to see you”—pause—“today”—pause—“Well, at least as soon as you possibly can.”
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that the way to stimulate a conversation with Margaret Thatcher was to disagree. If somebody disagreed, her eyes lit up and she launched into the argument. If somebody had a proposition, or she had a proposition, she turned the discussion into a friendly argument. My hon. Friend used to sit to one side, but between us, like an umpire at Wimbledon, with his head moving from side to side, with a faint grin, and I would peer out of the corner of my eye to see if I was winning. In any discussion with Margaret Thatcher at that time, I had to be very well prepared, and I was never quite sure when starting an argument disagreeing with her whether she was actually disagreeing with me or testing my hypothesis.
Margaret Thatcher’s saying, “The lady’s not for turning”, has come up several times today. That might have been true at that particular time, but I found in practice that she would listen to an argument, particularly if there was a political aspect to it, and be prepared to change her position, if the argument was suitable and good enough. She must have done so, because she could not have won so many elections in a row had she had mural dyslexia and been inflexible or unable to see the point of an argument. I think that is why she used to spend time talking to all kinds of people, from Presidents through to business people and the little people, such as me. I remember Lord King telling my business partner and me that he was to see Margaret Thatcher and that he was going to tell her this, that and the other thing. We met him two days after the meeting and asked him how it went. “Oh”, he said, “Mrs Thatcher told me this, she told me that and she told me the other thing.” I felt good.
As many Members have said, Margaret Thatcher was also prepared to help with campaigning, if we felt it would be of benefit, which I found extraordinary and it provided a real insight into her ability to understand. In 1986, we had a small battle in Wandsworth. We went into an election with a majority of one out of a full council of 61. Her standing in the polls, if I remember correctly, was 19% or 20%. Being a great supporter of some of the things we were trying to do and had done, she offered to drop in on the campaign in support. This was politely declined, and equally politely our “Thank you, but no” was accepted. Do remember, however, that shortly afterwards, that 19% or 20% lifted to a win at the election that shortly followed. It also, regretfully, in a way, meant that we won and we went from a majority of one to a majority of 35. As ever, however, Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, had the last say. I received another one of those phone calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—a summons to Downing street. I then had a session at which she picked my brains over what Wandsworth was doing, the election result and so on, followed by a request for an urgent formal report. My hon. Friend is a past master at quiet whispering in someone’s ear so that they do not miss the point, and as I left with him, he said, “Today is Tuesday. Can we have it by Friday?” I said, “Look, I’m awfully sorry John, but I’m going home to pick up my bags, and then I’m flying out for two weeks.” Exactly two weeks later I came back, opened the doors and dropped my cases, and as I dropped my cases, the phone rang. “Well”, he said, “Have you written it yet? It’s been two weeks. We want it. The Prime Minister particularly wants it.”
What I particularly enjoyed in discussions with Margaret Thatcher was that at the end of a discussion she generally had made up her mind, and I was told where I stood. That was extremely useful. On one visit, I sought an audience to explain that the then Inner London Education Authority was serving an education disservice on the children of London, including those in my own borough. My proposition was that the authority could and would provide a better education for inner-London children. I had no inkling of her thinking, but she immediately made it clear that I was pushing at an open door. Legislation followed, and even those who had once supported the ILEA recognised that it was a good move.
I came to this country and worked in east London. This country, as someone has already said, was the sick man of Europe. We were in a desperate state. Our balance of payments was appalling, we had gone to the IMF with hat in hand, and there were all the other things that many of us have mentioned. Margaret Thatcher’s arrival as Prime Minister could not have been any later, because we were on the edge; I just wish it had been sooner.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Beresford Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor-General
The Director of Public Prosecutions is working closely with all other authorities and took a personal lead in September by holding a round-table to consider how child sexual exploitation offences can be tackled. Witness care units are important and new Crown Prosecution Service guidance on child sexual exploitation is due in the new year. A great deal is being done, and special measures are being put in place to help witnesses give evidence.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is probably aware that a small team is looking into the history of cases of child abuse complaints in Northern Ireland. One member of the team is an ex-senior inspector in the Metropolitan police who explained to me that, looking back at cases from 1920, believe it or not, one stark fact is the astonishing lack of support for victims, including from the Crown Prosecution Service. Would my hon. Friend be interested in meeting him at the right time to consider whether there is anything from his expertise and research that would be of help?
The Solicitor-General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer, which I will certainly take up. He is right to say that support for witnesses is crucial to enable them to give their evidence in a confident and effective way. That is why the witness care units, the use of the voluntary sector supporters and the other work going into special measures at court to make it easier for witnesses to give evidence are all important. I look forward to the meeting.