Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks regarding our former colleague. She raises an important matter. She will know that there are several sources of support and funding from different Departments, but I will let the Cabinet Office know her concerns and ask that the appropriate Department get in touch with her office about this matter.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Hopefully, my right hon. Friend will agree that, in seeking net zero, a considerable proportion of our energy production will have to come from nuclear power sources. On that assumption, could she induce a debate in Government time to allow Government to discuss their plans to speed up the provision of nuclear power units, be they large or small reactors, and the prospect of fission and fusion reactors throughout the whole United Kingdom?

Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am not on the Committee. I have been on earlier renditions of it. It is interesting to watch developments and to read through the reports. I need to declare of course, in this debate of all debates, that I am a very, very, very part-time dentist.

The report is an interesting read. Mention has been made of Lord Nolan. If I can mention him again, he stated that the House of Commons must

“contain Members with a wide range of current experience which can contribute to its expertise.”

He also stated:

“A Parliament composed entirely of full-time professional politicians would not serve the best interests of democracy.”

If we are going to change the rules, we have to utilise that and move with it. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), suggested, and I agree with him, that setting an arbitrary limit and policing an MP’s hours on their outside interests, whatever they may be and whether paid or not, is ludicrous and probably impossible. Many outside interests that I think should be declarable are not declarable. Ultimately, the decision on the balance of time spent, as the Chairman said, must remain in the hands of the electorate and that is in the report. Fortunately, the code, and I suspect most of the House, recognises the need for certain professions, in particular medical professions. People need to practise to retain their licence. the House should look at the benefits that MPs’ outside interests bring to knowledge and expertise of our debates and actions.

That point draws me to the paragraph in the report which recommends

“tightening the lobbying rules so that a Member who has a live financial interest is prevented from both initiating or participating in proceedings or approaches to ministers or officials that would confer, or seek to confer a benefit”.

If that is imposed as worded, it will mean that an MP cannot lobby for a direct concern for their benefit, if that MP is receiving a renumeration for the concern. At first sight, that makes sense. It is covered to a fair degree by the rules on transparency. As has been mentioned, a recent incident was a classic example of this, but I hope that the Committee can look at another side, in that such a tightening would lose the House the benefit of Members’ expertise.

There is a plethora of examples. Active farmers, with their family farm, will discuss farming and environment issues—they could be the Chairman of a relevant Select Committee—and will have to raise issues and take part in debates, but that rule would stop it. A practising criminal barrister discussing legal changes in the criminal law is another example. In past years—the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda, might remember this—the House had the benefit of the expertise, at some length, of Bob Marshall-Andrews on such issues. On mental health issues, which were touched on in the previous debate, would we not wish to hear from the practising psychiatrist among us? Of course we would, but he would be banned.

I turn to my own case. For years, I have been lobbying in debates, seeing Ministers and so on in campaigning for the HPV vaccine to be extended to young boys as well as young girls. The Government eventually were persuaded and, as a result, there will be a considerable reduction in head and neck cancer. I cannot conceive of how it would be of financial interest to me, but equally, from some of the letters I have had, I can conceive of attempts to construct such an issue.

I have been involved in the campaign for fluoridation of water supplies for many years. As I said, I am a practising dentist. I am a member of the British Fluoridation Society, I have met Ministers and officials and I have spoken in debates on the issues. In fact, when a previous Labour Government were passing a new water Bill, I was asked by the then Labour Minister to help her in the debate when a misguided Welsh nationalist tried to attach a new clause to the Bill that would, in effect, have made the fluoridation of water supplies illegal. Fluoridation is a preventive measure and, when widespread, would have an effect on day-to-day dental practice. From a financial view, it would perhaps be negative. We should be in a position to promote that, but if we go ahead with this measure, we may not be able to.

To touch on something that the Chairman of the Committee mentioned, I ask the Committee to look, even in a cursory manner, at other interests that perhaps should be declared, even though there is no obvious financial interest. For example, a number of us have dual nationality. I think we should declare that especially when the country from which we have come is included in debate. If it is New Zealand, I declare it. I do not need to—the moment I start speaking everybody knows. I had better make it clear at this point that the Tebbit rule does apply. When England play the All Blacks, I cheer for England, but I have already placed my money on the All Blacks.

Perhaps most importantly, I would like the Committee to consider whether Members can belong to campaigning organisations and speak or seek to influence Ministers without a declaration of their membership. I think that is wrong. Membership of CND when discussing nuclear issues or Campaign to Protect Rural England when discussing planning issues are two possible examples.

Finally, I ask the Committee, in considering the changes, not to tighten the bindings on MPs so as to stifle debate and stop us exercising the diverse knowledge that we all have. The key has to be transparency, not complexity.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is absolutely right about the importance of this iconic building. Coming from the other end of the earth, I watch many of the Commonwealth Parliaments mimicking, or trying to mimic, this one, but they cannot mimic the building.

I was a little concerned when this debate came up because I was worried that the Leader of the House was going to tell us that the can was going to be kicked further down the road. So I enjoyed his speech, but I am afraid that I join his opposite number, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in the “get on with it” gang.

When I was on the Commission with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), we discussed this issue backwards and forwards, and we came forward with the decision that a full decant and “get on with it” action should happen. She gave an excellent speech on that—I am sorry she is not here to hear me put this point—which has saved me from having to do an awful lot of talking.

When we discussed this issue, I became aware that some of my friends in the press—I have some friends in the press, including the national press—were pretty cynical and pretty worried about the cost. I took two of them—one each from two of the national papers—around individually to show them the masonry, which was falling apart and decaying. Some of it was very ancient and in desperate need of restoration and renewal.

I also took them down to the basement—the long passageway that runs the length of the building—and showed them some of the 86 vertical chimneys running from it. They were originally designed for ventilation, which of course meant that a fire could travel laterally and vertically extremely quickly. At present, these chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying ages, many of them clearly defective, as well as gas pipes and so on. We have gas pipes down in the basement, as well as air conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems and communication fibres—there is, of course, also a hugely overlaid and overworked sewerage system. That infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys.

There is also a small duplication, which many Members will be unaware of, in the form of a corridor, much like that in the basement, running along the top of the building. In the days before the dangers of asbestos were known, that dangerous material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere from buckets. All that needs to be dealt with and preferably removed.

The sewerage system is extraordinary. It consists of two very large steel tanks, which are listed, at the Commons end, and that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. If we are going to do a part-and-part arrangement, that would be exceptionally difficult to deal with. As somebody mentioned, the system was put in place in 1888. It not infrequently bursts and not infrequently leaks. If it bursts over equipment or some of the infrastructure, disaster may well be staring us in the face.

Infrastructure has been laid on infrastructure. All must be removed to allow for a modern, safe replacement. This has long been realised by most who have looked into the basement over many decades. In fact, I understand that the problem was discussed in the House in 1904, as well as interminably since, but the radical renewal required has been consistently put off—the can being kicked down the road.

Any suggestion that the work could be completed from one end of the building, proceeding to the other defies logic. To even try that would greatly extend the period of the renovations and vastly increase the cost. We have to understand that the longer we wait, the more the risk of catastrophic collapse of service looms over us. In 2020, if my memory is correct, the risk was rated at a 50:50 chance of a catastrophic collapse of our services—not just fire but a collapse of our electricity, gas, telephone systems and fibres, where we have that. Fires regularly break out. We are at a real risk that means we could well have a total collapse of our internal communication system and of Parliament at both ends. As I said, I join the Opposition gang: the longer we delay, the greater the risk.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The current members, Mr Speaker; I think I must be allowed to comment on previous members. Otherwise, all my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) would be out of order, because Alfred the Great was certainly a member of the royal family. I think I am allowed to refer to Queen Elizabeth I, who introduced an Act to protect people from unfair dismissal. Of course, it was Lord Shaftesbury, that great Tory hero, who was the mainstay of 19th-century improvements in employment rights. The Conservatives have always been committed to that and will continue to be, which is why employment rights in this country are much better than they are in Europe, including on maternity leave and holiday time. It is because this nation and the Conservative party have a great commitment to employment rights.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Mole Valley, like many other constituencies, is frequently plagued by Travellers illegally invading both public and private land, and by abuse of planning legislation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office are said to be introducing legislation to help deal with the problem, but I am hearing a disparity of approach. It would therefore be helpful if, prior to its presentation, there was a debate to enable Members to express their wishes on this prospective legislation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. For many years, illegal Traveller encampments have brought crime to local areas, as well as antisocial and threatening behaviour. It remains the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows that strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. As we set out in our recent “Planning for the future” White Paper, we intend to review and strengthen existing powers and sanctions to ensure that they support the new planning system. We intend to introduce more powers to address intentional unauthorised development, consider higher fines and look at ways of supporting more enforcement activity. We want a fair system for all. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates their nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his views known to Ministers in the normal way, but an Adjournment debate might be an excellent means of getting his views further on the record.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

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

[Christian Matheson]

I absolutely agree. I hope we can also see this as an opportunity to train people in situ during the project, but someone has to do the training itself, so we will certainly have to upskill our people.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a lot of work is going on and firms are doing exactly that—bringing in apprentices and training them in specialties. I know that because one of the major firms is in my constituency.

[Christian Matheson]

It is great to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. I will come to the question of spreading the work around in a moment—the question that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) raised—but I am most grateful for that intervention.

Sadly, blacklisting is still rife in the construction sector. There are experienced construction workers and others in associated trades who cannot find work today or who are given a job offer only to find it withdrawn without explanation a couple of days later. Blacklisting wrecks lives, careers and families and damages workplace health and safety. When McAlpine was given the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben contract, it caused consternation because it had been up to its neck in blacklisting. Many large construction companies were part of the cabal of firms associated with the Consulting Association and faced legal action from trade unions on behalf of the blacklisted members. Numerous of those have now admitted their culpability and paid into a compensation scheme, but several others have failed to do so. I shall press the simple case that any construction company that has been found to be associated with blacklisting workers and failed to accept its wrongdoing and compensate workers for that treatment should be publicly excluded from bidding for these prestigious contracts. This is a chance for Parliament to express its opposition to the terrible practice of blacklisting, and we should embrace that chance.

It is incumbent on the Sponsor Body to ensure that all areas of the country benefit from this programme. London benefits from having Parliament physically located here, so the delivery body must ensure that work is fairly shared out across the country—a point that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts made in an intervention on the Leader of the House. I am proud that Donald Insall Associates, the country’s leading heritage architectural firm, based in my constituency and led by Tony Barton, is already working as conservation architect on the restoration and renewal project for the Palace and is advising on the northern estate. We must ensure that businesses small and large from across the UK have similar opportunities.

Finally, there are many ways in which we can respect the heritage of Parliament and replicate it while modernising it and making it accessible to everyone. This is a diverse nation and people have different needs. There are many people with disabilities that are not overtly visible. We need to be imaginative in working out how this place can be accessible—for example, to those with autism. We are told the noise in Portcullis House often reaches very high levels, and this has perhaps not been taken into account previously, although it was referred to earlier by the right hon. Member for Meriden.

Hon. Members have made various contributions to the consultation. I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has worked hard on bringing the idea of mindfulness to hon. Members and their staff, has asked that hon. Members and their staff benefit from a meditation room. These are ways of introducing new ways of working to an historic building.

In conclusion, we have a duty to protect this heritage building and world UNESCO site, and the restoration and renewal project will make this a more modern and compliant place to work with better access facilities for everyone. We can get this right, after so many years of kicking the can down the road, so that this place is fit for future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her introduction—it was a clear and useful indication of why we are here to debate this matter—and I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has obviously gone through the Bill carefully.

I listened to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) with interest, and I mostly understood him; as he knows, there is a language difficulty, but I did understand him—[Interruption.] If he addresses me, he has to do so very slowly. I do not agree with him, partly because this building is an iconic symbol of democracy. I say that as an ethnic minority immigrant from the Commonwealth, where some of the parliamentary buildings, particularly in Australia, are very much the same and run on the same lines, although the language in the Australian House in particular gets a little heavier than it does here, or than would be allowed here. I bring a lot of guests to Parliament—I run functions and so forth in the House—and to them, when they stand in the Chamber, this place is the epitome of democracy. The people most affected by it are the Americans. Over the years I have brought hundreds of them to the Chamber, and they envy us for what we have. We have to keep it.

I thought the need for works was well established—the Leader of the House set out various points as to why—but then I read some articles in the Sunday papers and it was quite clear that it had not been understood. I have brought members of the national press down and traipsed them through the underground. They understand, but not everybody does, and they also understand why it is going to cost so much money: it is an enormous task. The basic structure of the building is sound. Yes, bits fall off inside and outside, but that is superficial. Really, it is about the infrastructure underneath. I discovered that the House has been looking into doing something about the structure down there since 1904; it has taken us a while to get here.

We need to discuss the size of the task, which will mean, for all those members of the press, a little repetition. Most Members are aware that the House has a basement, which has a long passageway that runs the whole length of the building. The 86 vertical chimneys running from that passageway were originally designed for ventilation. This of course means—this had not been thought through—that a fire starting in that passageway could whip up any or all of those 86 chimneys and create a real disaster. If that happens, and if no life is lost, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire would feel all right about the fact that this iconic building had gone because we had not done the works.

At present, the chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying age, many of which are defective. We have gas pipes, air-conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems, communication fibres, and, as has already been mentioned, a ghastly old—1888—overloaded sewerage system. This infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys, and there is a duplication right across the roof as well. In the days when people did not know about asbestos, that material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere by brushes from buckets. As I have mentioned, the sewerage system consists of two large steel tanks that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. The system was put in, as I have said, in 1888 and suffers from repeated bursts.

A full decant was agreed by the House in the January 2018 resolution. Then there are the current security requirements. Those of us who arrived here 10 years ago did not need those security requirements then, but we do now. The whole security atmosphere has changed, so anything that we do and anywhere that we decant to needs to be within the current but enhanced security envelope. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, we need to decant to the northern estate. The work that should have been done there does not go back to 1904, but it does go back decades, which is why we have the difficulty and the cost. The cost of refurbishing that building to modern standards will be enormous.

The complexity of the task is quite staggering. It is for that reason that I am 100% behind setting up the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority. Although the ultimate task is the restoration and renewal of the parliamentary buildings, it makes sense that the major works enabling the decant to the northern estate and Richmond House should be undertaken by that body. I note the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda made. It is possible, if not probable, that, by the time those two authorities are set up and under way, the planning would have been—I hope—secured for the northern estate and perhaps even for Richmond House. I wonder—I say this slightly with tongue in cheek—whether Richmond House will be delisted and a new building of quality put in. The building must be of quality. We cannot have a Perth tent stuck in the middle of that space. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Heritage England to list the new building. My only nervousness relates to what has been said by others: we must move quickly for the safety of the building and for the people in this building—but quickly will mean many years.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader have recited the encyclopaedic list of Sir David’s achievements. I shall not repeat them, but they will appear in Hansard, and they will be worth reading.

Many of us did not recognise Sir David when we came into the Chamber, because he was one of the three “wigs” sitting on the bench, until the wigs were removed. As has been mentioned, however, a few of us have had the pleasure of working closely with him, either in Committees or individually. I am thinking particularly of the Commission, the Joint Audit Committee and the other Audit Committees. I, for one, always took Sir David’s advice when I asked for it individually, but not everybody did. He is very exacting. One of my colleagues, to her great amusement, was recently informed, politely but emphatically, that a letter was a letter and an email was an email, but an email was not a letter and a letter was not an email. The bemusement was worth watching.

Sir David’s humour keeps sneaking through, however, and anyone who had the pleasure of reading the letters between this House and the other place on the discussion—I will call it a discussion—of the role of the Pugin Room was in for a treat. Key members of staff retiring or moving on often had a thank you party in his rooms facing on to Parliament Street; his thank you speeches were a merciless delight. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I had regular meetings with him in the office at the back; that was because he is a member of the Finance Committee and I am chairman of the Administration Committee, not for any other reasons. However, it was his role to help the two of us put together an amendment for the restoration and renewal debate some months ago. His advice was that he would help, but it would not be carried. He helped, but he said he was so sure it would not be carried that he would put a bottle of champagne on it failing. I understand that on the evening of the debate he went home early enough to turn on the Parliament channel; that has to be devotion—or is it a case of “get a life”? Anyway, I am reliably told that when the vote went through he gave a cheer with raised arms as if England had won the rugby world cup—a pretty rare possibility—but I still await the champagne.

Like everybody in the House who has got to know Sir David, I wish him and his wife the very best for their retirement. Given his sense of humour, I hope he writes his memoirs, and I would like a signed copy.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, the right hon. Gentleman is exactly right about the importance of culture change and about how changing the structures and processes, and getting rid of that sense of entitlement will lead to the change we want to see. I just point out to all hon. Members that the complaints procedure has a number of investigations under way already. There will be consequences for those who are found to have behaved inappropriately, whoever they are in this place. There will be consequences, including—whoever they are—the potential for their livelihood to be taken away from them. That was an absolutely core point behind the complaints procedure. None of those things has come to pass as yet, because it is still very early days. It is only once we see those complaints followed through to their logical extent that we will start to see that people find that there are consequences of the way that they indulge their own behaviour. That is when we will start to see the culture change.

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific request for a guarantee from me, what is really important is that the review that will start in January—only a couple of months away now—will take into account very clearly Dame Laura’s recommendations and deal with and address them, because it will be caught up with the overall review of how the complaints procedure is working. The House Commission will absolutely undertake to address and draw some conclusions from Dame Laura’s recommendations, but it will be brought into the review of the entire complaints procedure, where we will actually see actions forthcoming.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the right to initiate inquiries. Does she consider that, in the light of this report, it would be appropriate in some cases for the commissioner to initiate inquiries into some of the historical allegations that have been referred to, perhaps with the assistance and advice of Dame Laura Cox? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend consider that the Standards Committee should rethink its position on the seven-year rule?

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am aware that we are already one hour into this three-hour debate and that there are lists upon lists of people who want to speak, so I will not take interventions and will be as succinct as possible.

This building is probably more important to me than to many here, because I come from an ethnic minority Commonwealth background and was brought up looking at the photographs of this fantastic building. It is a real honour to be here, so it was a shock when I became aware of the disaster that lurks around us, below us and above us. I believe we need a full decant because of the nature of the building’s infrastructure.

Most Members will be aware that the House has a basement, which has a long passageway that runs the length of the building. There are 86 vertical chimneys running from that passageway and they were originally designed for ventilation. That of course means a fire could travel laterally and vertically extremely quickly. At present, the chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying age, many of them clearly defective. We have gas pipes, air conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems, communications fibres and, of course, a hugely overloaded sewerage system, which I understand the Leader of the House discovered to her mishap—possibly through her shoes—when she visited.

The infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys, and there is a small duplication in the roof. In the days before the dangers of asbestos were known, that dangerous material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere by brushes from buckets, but asbestos can be dealt with. The infrastructure dangers are other than asbestos.

The sewerage system consists of two large steel tanks that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. The system was put in place in 1888 and it is just waiting to repeat the bursts we have already had. If those bursts go over some of the equipment and infrastructure, the disaster will stare us in the face.

We try to make not only the sewerage system but all the other systems fit our demands. This means that we are pushing on a door that is solidly locked. We have to take the infrastructure out. Despite the suggestion, it is not likely that we will find bodies because we will be repairing and renovating the infrastructure, not the structure of the building. We will not be digging down to look for Guy Fawkes or one of his relations.

The point we have to understand is that the longer we wait, the risk of a catastrophic collapse of services nears upon us. If my memory is correct, the risk is rated such that by 2020 we will have a 50:50 chance of a catastrophic collapse of our services. That does not just mean fire; it also means a collapse of our electricity or gas services, for example. About a dozen fires broke out last year. It has been asked, “Why wait?” I support amendment (b) to motion No. 1—the amendment tabled by the Chair and deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—because we need to assess the situation. We should not wait, but we have to assess before we go any further.

All the connected infrastructure needs to be removed and replaced. I am disappointed by the two motions. Motion No. 1 would kick the whole problem into the long grass and, to a major degree, so would motion No. 2. Both motions would mean extra expenditure when we are staring a full decant in the face. The thought that we could take out the infrastructure in half the building is engineeringly ludicrous. While we did that, we would have a long delay and more expense, and the other half of the infrastructure would continue to deteriorate while we sat and stared at the problem in the first half of the building.

Amendment (b) to motion No. 1, in essence, takes the Joint Committee’s recommendations on repair and renovation. As has been said, it is a bicameral, cross-party report. Many members of the Joint Committee were as cynical as anyone, including me, when they went in but, after the evidence, their conclusions were unanimous and conclusive. They took extensive advice from many who should and do understand the problems and solutions, and that is in the report and its conclusions.

I hesitate to use the word “experts” because it has become traditional to sneer at experts but, as a part-time dentist, if I have a patient with a very severe condition such as cancer, they want to see an expert. This building has a very severe and potentially fatal condition, so we need to take notice of the experts. Any method other than a full decant will vastly increase the costs, the time taken to do the works and the risk of disaster, and that risk is getting worse day by day, as I have said.

The security risk from a partial decant is obvious if one pauses to think about it. I have read the letters and papers from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). His amendment entails a partial decant. That has been rejected by the Joint Committee, by the Public Accounts Committee and by many, many other—if I dare use the word—experts. The approach the amendment sets out will, in essence, double the time for works, double the costs, increase the security risk, and increase the risk of fire and of a complete breakdown of the services in the other half. The thought of cutting a sewerage system—or the electrics or any of the other works—in half does not make sense because of the nature of the building. I am sorry to say this, but I would not give my hon. Friend—I hope he remains a friend—a LEGO set to play with.

I did say I would be as succinct as possible, so let me just say that it would be a severe derogation of our duty to not move expeditiously, and I urge support for the amendment standing in the name of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the PAC and of many others, including myself.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

As a member of the Commission and, for some time, a member of the Committee on Standards, I support the motion. I endorse the positive comments about Kathryn Hudson, who worked extremely hard. She arrived at a difficult time, when the Standards Committee first had lay members; there was a steep learning curve for the lay people and for Kathryn Hudson. She faced problems because every time she was perceived to have slipped, the press were after her. It is a difficult role, which she played exceptionally well. I wish her well in her retirement and thank her on my behalf and on behalf of the Standards Committee. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) will support the motion shortly.

As has been said, applicants were extensively sought, and 81 were reduced to six. Those six appeared before a small panel for interview. It included two Members of Parliament —the right hon. Member for Rother Valley and me. It was chaired by the Principal Clerk of the Table Office, whom I thank for her exceptional chairmanship. All interviewees were put through their paces gently—and sometimes not quite so gently. All their advantages and, indeed, some foibles, were drawn out. The panel’s final decision on the two who went forward for final selection was unanimous and solid. I endorse Kathryn Stone’s appointment. Having been part of the interview process, I believe that she will prove an excellent choice and I look forward to her joining us in due course.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is raising an important point, which clearly has significant relevance in her constituency. If she would like to write to me about it, I will be able to look into it further for her.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on electoral fraud, including double voting? Understandably, all MPs have a personal interest in this, especially if their constituency is a marginal one. I realise that the Electoral Commission watches us carefully, but such a debate just might concentrate minds a little.

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is a very important point. We have one of the oldest and proudest democracies in the world, and it is important that we continue to have rigorous electoral processes that cannot be fraudulently abused. I am sure my hon. Friend will find a way to have that debate and I encourage him to do so.