Tributes to the Speaker’s Chaplain

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I want briefly to add a personal note of thanks and tribute to Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin. Rose married Anne-Louise, my wife, and me about 18 months ago. She did that with great charm, great style and joyfulness, and great Christianity. She showed great care and sensitivity to us in preparing us for that wedding, and also to our families, and, in particular, Anne-Louise’s two children, who had lost their own father tragically. The care that she showed has always stuck with us. Since then, particularly in the past few months, when Anne-Louise, sadly, has been unwell, Rose’s continuing support and prayers, and the kindness that she has shown to our family, mean more to us than any words that I can say in this Chamber could ever adequately convey.

I also want to say a quick word about Rose’s husband, Ken, who has been a great support to her, and who I, as Chair of the Justice Committee, had the pleasure of meeting when he was working as a prison chaplain. He, too, has been a great servant of God and of the broader community, and a great witness to his faith. That enables me also to say how valued the work of the prison chaplaincy service is by many in difficult times of their lives.

Anne-Louise specifically asked me to come here today and say that she is still in hospital but on the mend, and that Rose’s support has meant more to us than anything. For those of us who do have a Christian faith, she could not be a better pastor and shepherd. For those who do not have such a faith, there could be no better ambassador. Dover will gain immeasurably from her arrival as its suffragan bishop.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you every success and your family every happiness for the future. It might not be so easy for me to see directly eye to eye with your successor; that might be more of a physical challenge for some of us. I wish you well and hope that all goes happily for you and your family in the future. In the end, we ought to remember that the things that bring us here in our desire to serve our communities are more important than the things that may divide us on political grounds.

[Mr Speaker]

The beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Reverend Rose will, I think, remain with colleagues for a long time to come. As to the matter of physical stature, he, I and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) share in common that characteristic of notable shortness, but I have always argued that we should at least be regarded as environmentally friendly on the grounds that we do not take up excessive space.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Might I reasonably hope that the Chair of the Justice Select Committee can ask a single-sentence question?

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that the Government have no plans to change the right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases?

Building Safety

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Again, I appeal for extreme brevity on the part of colleagues; if they do not provide it, they will have to be cut off, I am afraid.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State on Monday about the position of my constituents in Northpoint in Bromley. I welcome his announcement. Will he confirm that the establishment of the protection board ought to and must be used so that people such as my constituents—who have had to do this—may avoid the rigmarole of commissioning a building survey to prove eligibility for the fund and then applying for funding from the pre-application fund, the portal for which was not live at the beginning of the week? We need to cut through that immediately.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Prime Minister rightly referred in her statement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a most extraordinary situation. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to ask a question in a seemly way and is effectively being heckled and prevented from doing so by the chuntering from a sedentary position in pursuit of Scottish tribal warfare by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). Calm yourself, man. The Prime Minister is perfectly capable of looking after herself. She was asked a question and she has given an answer. There can be differences of opinion and interpretation as to what is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament, and those issues have been aired. The hon. Gentleman has not in any way benefited the mix by his disorderly chunter.

[Robert Neill]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister rightly referred in her statement to the importance of leaving in a way that maintains the closest possible security, policing and judicial co-operation with the EU27. That is what we have at the moment. The Justice Committee was given clear evidence by the head of the National Crime Agency that to do otherwise would severely impair our ability to fight organised crime and terrorism and keep our country safe. Does she agree that to fail to leave without a deal—to fail, therefore, to pass the only available means of leaving with a deal—will be to put the security of the country at risk? That is not something that any Member of this House could responsibly contemplate doing.

Probation Reform

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an important statement and I am keen to accommodate all would-be questioners on it, but I remind the House that there are two debates to follow, the protection of time for which is also a priority for the Chair. Therefore, notwithstanding the insatiable enthusiasm of colleagues for putting full inquiries on this matter, I appeal for brevity.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I will do my best, Mr Speaker.

I welcome this statement and I hope that anyone who cares about the criminal justice system will also welcome it. It is a good thing for Governments to reflect on experience and adjust policy and that is what the Secretary of State should be commended for doing. Does he agree that a critical part of the new arrangements must be to ensure sentencer confidence and that, therefore, not only must there be continuity of supervision, but an assurance to sentencers of the quality of supervision? Will he perhaps look at means by which the judiciary can be better involved in the follow-up to sentencing to ensure that that is the case?

Privatised Probation System

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No less celebrated a denizen of the House than the Chair of the Justice Select Committee is among our number. We are deeply appreciative of that fact. Let us hear him.

[Robert Neill]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Minister’s frank and honest response to the findings of this report, which, as he knows, mirror almost entirely the conclusions of the Select Committee’s report last June. As well as confirming, as I am sure he will, that the Government accept the three principal recommendations in paragraph 21 of the NAO report, will he reflect particularly on the division between CRCs and the national probation service in two respects? First, the division by categorisation of risk has been much criticised, because risk levels vary and change during the process of supervision and the current categorisation does not reflect that. Secondly, the separation and distancing of the CRCs, which deliver the programmes, from the sentencers in court has undoubtedly undermined sentencer confidence in community sentences and alternatives to custody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Neill—one sentence.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to ensure continuity of contractual obligations and enforceability of judgments once we leave the EU, which would be prevented by a no-deal outcome?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

20. The Housing Minister, in response to a debate on Wednesday 22 January, indicated that he had written to the owners and the developer of Northpoint in Bromley. It is exactly the same situation as that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). Has the Minister yet had a response, and what assurance can be given to Bromley Council about the guidance should it use emergency remedial powers under the Housing Act 2004?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I perhaps return to the question? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a real need to revisit the standard directions that judges give to juries in relation to the use of social media? Generally judges are well alert to the issue, but, as we know, there have been instances in which convictions have had to be set aside because juries have, in effect, researched the case outside the jury room using social media.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, the previous exchanges were entirely orderly, and I would have ruled otherwise if they were not. That is the position, which, frankly, the Solicitor General ought to take to heart, and upon which he might usefully reflect. I will be the arbiter of what is orderly, not the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Points of Order

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The letter that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) referred to touches upon a most grave matter in any view to all Members of the House. Is it either in order or courteous that the text of that letter should have been released to a journalist who has then put it up on Twitter? I know that that was because of the journalist, but was it in order for hon. Members or those acting on their behalf to release it before you were apparently aware of it or had had the chance to consider it and rule on it?

[Mr Speaker]

It is always best if letters sent to me are received and seen by me before they are seen by others, but I will address the substantive responsibility that is invested in me—that is frankly a different and on the whole rather more important matter, but I always treat the hon. Gentleman and all Members with courtesy. I note what he said and I issued my response in the first sentence of my reply to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Chair of the Select Committee should have a second bite of the cherry. I call Mr Bob Neill.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has a particular responsibility to protect the interests of the judiciary. Recruitment to senior judicial office is a continuing problem, and there is a regular shortfall. He has indicated that he intends to consider seriously the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. When can we expect a response to this, given that a number of important posts are due to fall vacant?

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The House has resolved this matter, in that the motion has been put to it and approved without dissent or objection by it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely entitled—both in the course of his speech, as he did, and now via the ruse of a point of order—further and better to explain what he seeks, and there is nothing wrong, exceptionable or disorderly about that.

The ruling I give is simply that the motion is effective—I have been advised thus. It is not just an expression of the opinion of the House; it is an expression of the will of the House that certain documents should be provided to it. It is then for the Government to respond, and we await that response, which it is to be expected will be swift. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.

[Robert Neill]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

One can always rely upon a lawyer to have a “further to that point of order”.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Will you also confirm that nothing in the resolution detracts from or undermines the obligation upon the Law Officers to consider the public interest when coming to a decision on the appropriate form of any disclosure that is made?

[Mr Speaker]

The resolution is as agreed, and I do not think any violence to the position of the Law Officers has been done.

In response to the Solicitor General, who concluded the debate with his characteristic courtesy and good humour, I feel sure that the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will treasure his tribute to her. It is to be expected that it will be framed, and I rather imagine that she will give it pride of place in her sitting room.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was very interesting, but rather long.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most significant indeed that yesterday the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, in saluting the support the Prime Minister has personally given to the negotiations, observed that for the first time the Prime Minister of Spain has publicly accepted that the inclusion of a protocol to protect the interests of Gibraltar is a done deal if there is a deal and an agreement? Does that not demonstrate how important it is for any friend of Gibraltar that there is a deal and it is carried in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his engagement to Ann-Louise Whittaker, and may I say to the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the fact that he is a very young man to be planning to rush into matrimony, we all wish him and Ann-Louise a very happy wedding on Friday 27 July?

[Robert Neill]

That is very kind, Mr Speaker; Ann-Louise and I are very grateful to you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Is the Minister not concerned, first, that many of the regular commuters on our line do not regard the performance measures as reflecting reality, particularly in the rush hour, and, secondly, that Network Rail only a couple of days ago published a suggestion that performance will actually deteriorate over the next coming years and will not pick up again until 2024? I would like our wedding guests to come on the train, but I do not think I can advise them to do so at the moment; does the Minister agree that the situation is wholly unacceptable, and what will he do about it?

[Mr Speaker]

Before 27 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s offer is an interesting one. It might also be thought by some to be a divisible proposition.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Secretary of State’s speech this morning and his emphasis on more use of release on temporary licence is extremely welcome and constructive. Will he bear in mind, though, that the Through the Gate programme currently involves careers and employment advice being given only towards the very end of a prisoner’s sentence, whereas all the evidence suggests that that should happen much earlier?

Business of the House

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I tell the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee that there is a famous scene in “Iolanthe” where the Lord Chancellor persuades himself of the merits of his own cause?

May we have a debate on the working practices and procedures of the Education and Skills Funding Agency? There is a particular issue in my constituency with Bullers Wood School for Boys. The Secretary of State for Education is very much on the case, but there is an underlying picture of an organisation whose procurement processes are top-heavy, slow, hierarchical and very process-driven. This body is sometimes resistant to advice from external partners, who can often bring greater local knowledge to bear on its procurement processes.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gather that he was spotted in a prominent place at the first night of the said performance. We hope he richly enjoyed himself.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As per usual on a matter of this kind, there is extensive interest in participating in the exchanges on the statement, so I will just make two points. First, people who arrive late obviously should not stand or expect to be called. Secondly, because of the pressure on time and the fact that there is another statement to follow, there is a premium upon brevity, which must be exhibited—even by a lawyer. I call Robert Neill.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Will he confirm that it is particularly important for councils with a long history of efficient financing and a low cost base, such as the London Borough of Bromley, that the review of relative costs and needs ensures that financial efficiency is properly incentivised within the local government finance system?

Forensic Evidence: Alleged Manipulation

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to try to conclude these proceedings by 4 o’clock, if possible. This is an important matter, but there is a statement to follow and a very, very heavily subscribed continuation of the Budget debate, which colleagues will want to factor into their calculations when asking questions.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Perhaps the Minister can help us a little more on this very serious matter. Can he give us some idea of the dates over which this alleged wrongdoing took place and how they relate to the changes in the Forensic Science Service? What percentage of the samples involved were or were not used for evidential purposes in criminal cases or others?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Because of our current ability to access European markets, the London financial services sector processes transactions worth about £880 billion every day. For context, that is about 100 times our net annual contribution to the EU, and about 15 times the highest sum that has been spoken of as a potential financial settlement. Against that background, does not my hon. Friend agree—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am glad that the question mark is coming. Questions are terribly long-winded today; it really is very poor. Anyway—blurt it out, man!

[Robert Neill]

Against that background, is it not imperative that we secure a deal on leaving the European Union that will protect access to European markets for our financial services?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was not requested, but I am, as usual, in a generous and benevolent mood.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

19. What steps she is taking to reduce motorcycle and moped crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! The Chair of the Justice Committee, no less.

[Robert Neill]

It is no pleasure to say that a number of the criticisms of the development of this policy were foreshadowed in a Justice Committee report in the previous Session. As well as rightly and promptly acting to reimburse fees paid, will the Minister undertake to look at some of the specific recommendations in that report and at the factual findings on the evidence in the Court’s judgment? That would highlight a better way of developing policy in this area so that we do not end up in this situation again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will call the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) if he confines himself to a short sentence.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, who will have retired by the next Justice questions, both for his integrity as a judge and for his modernising work as head of the judiciary in England and Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Put a copy in the Library of the House and we will all be blessed.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Ministry has released figures showing that the number of incidents of drugs being found in prison more than quadrupled from 2,500 in 2015 to 10,400-plus in 2016, yet the National Offender Management Service does not keep a central register of cell searches, which is where many of these drugs are found. Will that change?

European Council 2016

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah yes—a notable legal egghead: Mr Robert Neill.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is accepted that business wishes to see the maximum possible certainty in which to make its investment decisions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that certainty is not achieved by equivocation or obfuscation about our intention to trigger article 50, but is better served by triggering it promptly and then being flexible and business-focused in the terms of our negotiation and the implementation of the final deal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Cleverly. Not here. I assume the hon. Gentleman was notified of the intended grouping. In that case, where on earth is the fella?

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

On the train.

[Mr Speaker]

No doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The late Professor Gary Slapper, the well-known commentator and columnist who sadly died at the weekend, was a considerable crusader for informing the law on corporate responsibility. It would be a tribute to his memory if we were to work on that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should also look at two other matters? The first is the so-called Magnitsky arrangements for freezing the assets of those involved in corruption. Secondly, in order to enforce that, we must maintain the operational independence of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that three points satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s palette.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well! A one-word answer. Absolutely magnificent. I very much doubt that we shall hear a one-word question, but we can always ask the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is himself an accomplished lawyer. There is a hint there. I call Mr Robert Neill.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Given the Government’s welcome development of a corruption prevention strategy for our prisons, will the Minister look personally at the allegations of systemic corruption raised by BuzzFeed News today on the basis that this presents a serious risk of undermining our prison system?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, Mr Robert Neill.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the 40% increase in suicides in 2015-16 among offenders undergoing supervision in the community? Will she therefore expedite the Department’s review of the effectiveness of the transforming rehabilitation programme?

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I say to my right hon. Friend that, as a former holder of this part of his post, I entirely welcome and support these amendments? The inspectorate is a thoroughly good idea, but may I raise one technical issue? There is provision for delegation to another public body. Many of us think that it would be much better if new schedule 1 were phrased so as to permit the use of external contractors to carry out certain elements of the inspection on behalf of inspectors where outside expertise may not be readily available in a public body. At the moment, the wording of new clause 48 and new schedule 1 does not appear to permit delegation to external contractors, who may well have expertise in operational audit, which is precisely what we need to make inspections robust and independent. Will he reflect on that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No one could accuse the hon. Gentleman of excluding from his intervention anything that he thought might at any time, in any way, to any degree be material, and I have a sense that when he practised law regularly he operated in a similar vein.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the statement began cannot expect to be called. Our convention on that matter is very clear and people need to abide by it.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on having negotiated a difficult minefield with considerable skill. I particularly thank him for his thoughtful approach and for the time that he gave to me, my fellow MPs and my council leader from Bromley when we came to see him. I welcome the fact that he has picked up on the importance of transitional relief in so far as it affects the London boroughs, given the risk that outer London’s particular circumstances can sometimes be lost in the equation. Can he give me details of the timeframe for the operation of the transitional relief? Can he also tell me more about the review of the needs element, which many of us welcome? I regret that we were unable to do that in coalition, but there were many other pressing matters at that time. It is important that the comparatively low unit costs incurred by historically efficient local authorities should be picked up when setting the baseline for retained business rates.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor’s speech to the Magistrates Association last week was very welcome on a number of counts, particularly his reference to the success of problem-solving courts in New York, such as that at Red Hook, which the Justice Committee has looked at in the past. Will he give us further details of his discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on how we can take that process forward? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was rather too little regard being paid to the fact that we were listening to a question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, a point of which I hope hon. Members will take proper note in future.

Points of Order

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not an occasion for a debate on this matter, and to be fair I do not think any Member would expect such. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) has perfectly properly raised his point of order—I thank him for the terms in which he has done so—and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has responded, and we must now leave it there and proceed with our next item of parliamentary business.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I trust that it is on a wholly unrelated point.

[Robert Neill]

It is on a point of general principle, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. If he seeks to raise a totally unrelated point of order—that is to say, not related to anything that we have just covered and on which I have given a definitive ruling—I will hear him, but I rather suspect from the prevarication that it is not totally unrelated.

[Robert Neill]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak when I give him the opportunity and not before. If he has his opportunity, he had better not be a chancer and he had better not fluff it.

[Robert Neill]

I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will give guidance to Members as to the proper means of raising legitimate concerns about public authorities, to ensure that matters that should properly be raised, which concern all Members of this House, are not handled in such a way as might appear to impinge on the independence of judicial and investigative processes.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is kind—I have known him for years and he has always been kind—but he somewhat over-interprets my brief and my wisdom. It is not for the Chair in this House to counsel Members as to how to proceed in such matters. We have, as citizens, the same rights as everybody else. In respect of our membership of this House we have certain additional freedoms and privileges, which must be exercised with great care; we also have responsibilities, and I referenced those, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, with particular regard to the code of conduct. I know that the hon. Gentleman only ever seeks to be helpful, and I hope that he is either content or will at any rate today satisfy himself with my response. We will leave it there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Some of these answers require a bit of practice, because they suffer from the disadvantage of being not just a bit long, but far too long—hopelessly long.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure as many policy holders as possible are identified before the Equitable Life payment scheme closes to new claimants on 31 December 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister truly is a man of the people.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

13. If he will meet senior management of Southeastern to discuss the reliability of its rail service; and if he will make a statement.

Devolution in England

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

First, I assure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are not having an identity parade, but I think the hon. Gentleman has the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) in mind.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As an ex-Minister, I break no confidence in saying that when decisions are being taken, part of the advice will regularly be about the judicial review risks. Anyone who serves in an English local authority will know that part of the significant conversation nowadays is, “Okay, we think this is the right thing to do. How do we defend it against judicial review? We know, even though we have done the right thing, consistent with our democratic mandates, that a judicial review will be coming.” That cannot be in the public interest.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is always a delight to enjoy the free-flowing eloquence of the hon. Gentleman as he develops his tutorial, but may I gently ask him to bear in mind that a number of others wish to speak, notably his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), and time is not limitless? Although we are savouring the hon. Gentleman’s delights, all good things must eventually come to an end.

[Robert Neill]

I rather suspect, Mr Speaker, that you have anticipated how my ministerial career came to an end as well, delightful though it was at the time. I am happy to draw my remarks to a close, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has a great deal of expertise on this matter. I will also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), not least because his predecessor was a member of my chambers who led me on a number of cases, including some judicial review matters with which he dealt expertly. [Interruption.] I am sorry to have driven you from the Chair, Mr Speaker.

Let me conclude with these thoughts. The judicial process is important for its checks and balances. That position is not being changed by the Government’s proposals; what they are providing is a reality check on the process of judicial review. On the issue of interveners, if someone chooses to intervene in litigation, they should not do so without being aware of the costs that their intervention can bring. That is what we are seeking to do. It is often the intervener, rather than the initial parties, who takes up the bulk of the time in the case. It is logical for someone who seeks to intervene in a case—no one is obliged to do so, after all—to face the discipline of the potential costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he agree that mediation is well established in the commercial law field and growing in the family and matrimonial law field, but that we are perhaps missing a trick in two areas? The first is in ensuring that more use is made of mediation in land compensation and related planning disputes. Will he meet me to discuss whether the Bill on High Speed 2 gives the Government an opportunity to promote that and to create greater awareness among fellow Departments, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was paid by the word when he was practising at the Bar, he must have become a very rich man indeed.

Planning (Mottingham)

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

The all-party save the pub group is entirely behind my hon. Friend’s community campaign and will offer him any support we can. The simple answer—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is twofold. First, as my hon. Friend will know, the great news is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on finally dealing with the property scam that is the pubco model, which includes Enterprise Inns. I hope that we will hear later this year that that will be dealt with. Secondly, I hope that we will start to get it through to the community pubs Minister—my hon. Friend and I had debates when he used to be the community pubs Minister—that although the provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are positive, we cannot accept a planning framework that allows such behaviour. We must have a change, so that pubs cannot become supermarkets behind communities’ backs and without any consultation with those communities. That cannot be right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman would almost have had time to consume a pint in the course of his intervention.

[Robert Neill]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. You will know of the importance that all communities attach to their local public house, Mr Speaker, and this behaviour is particularly reprehensible. It has denied people the opportunity to step in, unlike what has happened at other places nearby, such as the Baring Hall public house near Grove Park station, where notice was given and the community was able to get the asset listed. That opportunity was denied in the case of the Porcupine as a result of the underhand behaviour of Enterprise Inns.

The situation has been made worse by the behaviour of Lidl. It is becoming apparent that the company’s business model is one of acquiring public house sites and turning them into supermarkets in a secretive and predatory fashion—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) says that this is about collusion, and I have to say that a lot of people in Mottingham would agree.

As I have said, the situation has been made worse by Lidl’s behaviour. Representatives of the company came to a public meeting organised by the Mottingham residents association and, to put it charitably, gave misleading information about the status of the planning application. They claimed that they already had permission to demolish the public house, when in fact they had not even made an application. Since then, although they claim that they wish to consult the community, they have done no more than board up the public house. They want to demolish it so that, in effect, the pass will have been sold and it will be impossible to rebuild a pub on the site, but I am pleased to say that Bromley council will have to consider a section 31 application. I am sure that it will deal with such an application in an appropriate fashion. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot prejudge planning cases, but I would simply observe that I believe that there are very strong planning grounds for deciding that this is not an appropriate place for a supermarket.

Lidl’s poor behaviour did not stop there, however. Until I secured this debate—as well as earning a rebuke from you, Mr Speaker, for making an intervention on the matter at business questions that was perhaps a little less crisp than I try to be—Lidl had refused to engage at senior level with me or any other elected representative. Lidl is a privately owned, German-based company, and it is now buying up pubs around London and turning them into supermarkets. Ironically, there is a Lidl just 10 minutes away from this site, in Eltham, as well as branches of Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and Sainsbury’s within easy reach of it.

I find it extraordinary that, having misled residents over the status of the application, Lidl took no steps to correct that. It put in an application, then forgot to pay the fee for about seven days, which says something about the company. When I sought a meeting with a Lidl board director, the company refused to give my office the names of its directors. We had to go to Companies House to find out who they were. It refused to give me the names, and refused to meet me until it heard about the publicity generated by this debate. That is a contemptuous way in which to treat the public.

There are two messages for people in all this. First, they should know how Lidl is behaving in this case. Secondly, the Campaign for Real Ale is actively promoting its “List your Local” campaign, and my message to anyone with a pub owned by Enterprise Inns in their community is that they should get it listed as an asset of community value now, because they cannot trust Enterprise Inns not to sell it from under them without telling them. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As things are, a demolition application has now been submitted and will have to be considered by Bromley council. I am happy that it will take whatever steps are appropriate, but this case demonstrates an attitude that is damaging for the community in that area.

This is not the only occasion on which Lidl has behaved in this way. In Warlingham, it destroyed the former Good Companions public house. It knocked it down, but it has yet to submit an application to redevelop the site. It demolished a former police station in Dartford as soon as it acquired it, and the residents of Dartford have had to live with a derelict site for the subsequent 15 months. That is predatory behaviour. It is unacceptable and unbecoming of a public company. I hope that the directors on the board of Lidl will realise the reputational damage that their conduct is doing. I say that more in hope than in expectation, but we can at least use the engine of publicity to flag up their behaviour and that of Enterprise Inns. The Minister might be aware that an application has now been submitted for the Porcupine public house to be listed as an asset of community value, and I hope that it will give it some protection in due course.

Local Government Finance (England)

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Durham is in the unitaries. I was glad to hear recognition of local authorities as among the most efficient parts of the public sector. That may have something to do with the political control of the majority of local authorities. In reality, this settlement is not just about the important level of funding for this year and next year, but about setting a course that rewards local authorities that think outside the box.

An important point to make about that is that it is slightly depressing to hear, in a number of interventions from Opposition Members, the mantra, “We are worried about the cliff edge; we need to rebuild the base.” With respect—I say this from my experience, for what it is worth, in local government and from my period as a Minister—that is a profoundly misguided approach to adopt. The world of public service delivery is changing. Simply rebuilding the base on its old basis is not the answer. The base will never be as it was before, because the way we do things will never be as it was before. We are seeking to give local authorities the flexibility in their funding arrangements to find new ways of using their budgets, not simply saying, “Let’s get back to the old levels of money and the old way of doing things.” That was the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. On the contrary, through the initiatives announced by my hon. Friend the Minister to reward efficiency much more—I hope we can look at what more we can do in future—we are giving local authorities an incentive to work together. It is not about how much local authorities get; it is about how they use it.

To give one example, I have mentioned in the past the London borough of Tower Hamlets—that well known local authority—which, among other things, manages to spend £1.2 million on eastend life, its information newspaper, which contains restaurant reviews, the football scores and other things that are entirely germane to local council services in its area. No doubt Opposition Members will say, “Oh, what’s £1.2 million here or there?”—that is not the sort of money they are interested in—but let us contrast that with my borough of Bromley, which has never run a municipal newspaper in its life, but which, when it needs to, simply takes out an advertising wraparound with the free sheet. I can tell hon. Members that Bromley has been done: it is appointing a shared director of public health, because part of the important ongoing work on public health funding—to which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred—is aligning it more closely with social services and adult social care funding. That is what Bromley is doing: it is working with a Labour council next door on joint procurement of IT services. Bromley is also looking at joint working on its legal and library services.

Those are the things that sensible councils across the country are and should be doing. To sneer at that and say, “Oh, this is just ‘50 ways to insult people’” indicates a mentality that I have not seen in public life since King Charles X of France was evicted from the Tuileries by the mob in the warm-up for “Les Misérables”. At the end of the day, they have not moved on and they have lost—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful.

Points of Order

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have received no such indication that a Minister is planning to come to the House to speak on those matters. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue his interests further in subsequent questions, in so far as he thinks he has not already done so to his satisfaction, and that of others, through the ruse of an attempted point of order.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The House is in a very inquisitive mood today.

[Robert Neill]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 January this year, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the operation of the local government standards regime. In the course of the debate, I and other hon. Members referred to the standards regime in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and there was subsequent reporting of that. On 23 January there was a meeting of the full council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. On the same day, the chief executive sent a letter—I have sent it to your office, Mr Speaker—the effect of which, I contend, was an attempt to gag any conversation or discussion of what had been discussed in this House. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. Am I correct in thinking that the advice given by the chief executive of the London borough of Tower Hamlets is erroneous in using the phrase,

“the fact that those comments have been made in Parliament does not entitle Councillors to refer or repeat them in Council or elsewhere.”,

which ignores the fact that qualified privilege does attach to a bona fide and accurate report of proceedings in this House, made without improper notice?

Secondly, the advice is erroneous because it says that making such a report might be in breach of the member-officer code of the council, but the internal code of a council cannot override the right of qualified privilege in relation to a report of the House if all other necessary qualifications are met.

Thirdly, the attempt by a public body to gag discussion or criticism of it that has been raised in the House is at the very least a discourtesy to the House, if not verging on the contemptuous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. With reference to the use of material outside the House being bona fide or not, that is a matter for the courts, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to occupy that territory. However, I can give what I hope is a substantive response to his point of order that is of value to him and the House.

I am quite clear that his contribution in Westminster Hall is protected entirely by article 9 of the Bill of Rights. What he said on that occasion may not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. The protection of papers published under the direct authority of this House is also clear. However, the extent of the protection afforded under section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 or otherwise to the repetition in some other place of anything said in this House is, as I have indicated, a matter for the courts, as the Act makes clear—it would be quite wrong for me to offer any opinion on that question from the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take up any particular concerns he has on parliamentary freedom of speech with the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I hope that is helpful.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are all looking forward to the development of the hon. Gentleman’s further arguments with eager anticipation.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

Localism Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 2—‘Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions.

Government new clause 20—Authority may be required to carry on commercial activities through a taxable body.

Amendment 351, in clause 158, page 138, line 45, at end insert—

‘London Housing and Regeneration Board

“333ZDA London Housing and Regeneration Board

(1) The Authority must establish a London Housing and Regeneration Board within six months of the Localism Act 2011 being passed.

(2) The London Housing and Regeneration Board is to consist of such numbers (being not less than six) as the Authority may from time to time appoint.

(3) The Authority must appoint one of the members as the person with the function of chairing the London Housing and Regeneration Board.

(4) In appointing a person to be a member, the Authority—

(a) must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and shown some capacity in, a matter relevant to the exercise of the functions set out in this Chapter,

(b) must be satisfied that the person will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of the person’s functions as a member, and

(c) must ensure that at least 50 per cent. of the number of members on the Board are appointed representatives of London boroughs.

(5) In exercising its housing and regeneration functions and powers subsequent to the enactment of this Chapter the Authority must consult and obtain agreement from the London Housing and Regeneration Board.”’.

Government amendments 205 to 210 and 212.

Amendment 352, in clause 168, page 148, line 7, at end insert—

‘(e) a majority of those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated development area agree to the designation.’.

Government amendments 213 to 215, 218 to 220, 223, 253 to 255 and 265.

[Robert Neill]

We are dealing with part 7 of the Bill, which relates to governance in Greater London, and part 3, which relates largely to business rate matters and, I am delighted to say, has not proven controversial. I hope that part 7 will not detain us terribly long either, as a good degree of consensus was achieved in Committee and there are just one or two matters that it is necessary to debate further.

I will start with new clause 21, the lead provision in the group, and the majority of associated matters. With the exception of only two topics that I will come to in a moment, the rest of the group comprises a large number of technical amendments relating to two tax issues. Although the new clause is the first new clause listed on the amendment paper, it is not really the natural starting point, so perhaps I will be forgiven if I leapfrog over it to new clause 20, which will amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and require the Greater London authority to undertake certain specified activities for a commercial purpose through a taxable body. It relates to the transfer of a large number of functions of the Housing Corporation in London to the Mayor, to the movement of the London Development Agency into the GLA’s main body, and to the establishment of mayoral development corporations in London. All of those potentially involve commercial activity, so we have to get the tax treatment right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful if I interrupt to make the point to the House that, although that is indeed the lead new clause, the order in which representatives on the Treasury Bench deal with matters is entirely a matter for them. Members can come in on such matters within the grouping as they think fit.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

I will encapsulate the technicalities as swiftly as I can, but it suffices to say that these amendments are necessary to ensure that those commercial activities that are undertaken by the GLA are done so within a taxable environment. As a local authority, it would normally have tax-exempt status, but some of those activities are not of a local authority nature but more of a commercial nature and so have to be properly taxable. There is a long-established tax principle in that regard to ensure a level playing field between the public and private sectors in relation to commercial activities. That is particularly important in this case because the GLA will inherit, as a consequence of our devolution measures, a significant portfolio of land interests, some of which operate on a commercial basis and are subject to corporation tax and capital gains tax. It is not a new state of affairs. Section 157 of the 1999 Act made like provision in relation to the activities of Transport for London. That is the background to what we are doing.

In a nutshell, the list of specified commercial activities, which will be set out in a detailed order, will be worked up by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the GLA during the passage of the Bill, but essentially the activities of the London Development Agency and Homes and Communities Agency will be transferred to the Mayor. That is how new clause 20 kicks off the whole proposition.

New clause 21 introduces new schedule 2, which will neutralise certain tax consequences—the other side of the coin—that might otherwise arise from the transfer of various property, rights and liabilities from the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords, the Homes and Communities Agency and the London Development Agency to other public bodies. There is a measure to enable the Treasury to make similar tax provisions for future mayoral development corporations. As we know, one is proposed, and we will come to that in a moment, but the provision will technically permit others to be set up and, therefore, embrace properly, within a legal framework, all those related activities.

Essentially, every Government new clause and amendment with which we are concerned relates to that process. The Opposition have tabled a couple of amendments, which I can deal with conveniently either now or in due course once they have been spoken to, but suffice it to say that the only Government amendments that do not form part of the tax treatment provisions are amendments 212 and 213. They relate to the mayoral development corporation, which is proposed for establishment, and I hope that we can find some common ground, because in Committee there was a discussion and Members generally accepted as desirable both the idea that the Mayor of London should have the power to establish a mayoral development corporation, and the current Mayor’s intention to establish such a corporation broadly relating to the Olympic park in east London.

The provision is more widely cast than that, for good reasons, and it will permit the establishment of other mayoral development corporations. None is envisaged by the current Mayor and I am not conscious of any envisaged by potential Mayors, either, but it would be on the books for the future.

The question that arose, and which the Government seek to address with the proposed changes, was what are the appropriate means of holding the Mayor to account for mayoral development corporation proposals. If a future Mayor—I am sure that it would not be the current Mayor—were to come up with a proposal for a mayoral development corporation which was thought objectionable, by what means would a control or brake be put on that process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I think I am right in reporting the Minister as saying that a principle of the Localism Bill is to trust local representatives. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind as they take the Bill through its final stages in the House, because I want to question them about why that does not carry through to the imposition of shadow mayors, although I know that that is outside the scope of this debate. If we are to be true to the principle of trusting elected representatives, which the Minister has just stated, we must not impose on them.

Various people have intervened in this debate. It would help if we moved on to considering the amendments fairly soon, because we will be able to take the arguments in the round if we do that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is in the hands of the Chair. At this stage, the hon. Gentleman will continue his remarks.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I am anxious to deal with as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible, because this debate is time-limited, and for good reason. I hope that I have dealt, in large measure, with why it is appropriate to adopt the Government amendments, and why that is preferable to placing a veto in the hands of the boroughs, which would create a potential conflict of interest, or the earlier Opposition proposition of leaving a veto with central Government, which would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill.

I will cover one final topic before I finish, if I may. Another proposal in the group, which I anticipate will be put, is amendment 351, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the next-door neighbour of part of my constituency. The amendment relates to the London housing and regeneration board. It is important that the Bill transfers housing powers and responsibilities from central Government agencies, in the form of the Homes and Communities Agency, to the Mayor. That has been welcomed across the piece politically in London. It is envisaged that the London housing board will be the vehicle within which that work is carried out.

As I read it, and I will happily be corrected if I am wrong, the amendment would prescribe in statute a requirement that the GLA should have a London housing and regeneration board. I cannot go that far because although it is no doubt a sensible thing to have, certainly at the moment, and is something that works well enough with the involvement of the Mayor’s office and the boroughs, we do not think it is consistent with the spirit of localism for us to prescribe, in one particular area, the manner in which the GLA should carry out its activities. Interestingly, that again seems to be a little bit of potential centralism creeping in through the back door. I would prefer to give the Mayor and the boroughs flexibility in determining how to take those issues forward.

I hope that I have dealt with all the topics in what has perhaps been a livelier debate than might have been anticipated when we started to talk about tax clauses, which I note have not featured in the controversy at all, perhaps not surprisingly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I have surveyed every fire and rescue service in the country about the impact of this year’s financial settlement. Fire chiefs have told me that his cuts to their budgets will result in fire stations being closed, fire appliances being taken out of service and more than 1,000 firefighters losing their jobs in the next 12 months alone. Is he confident that his cuts will not compromise public safety? Will he accept that the feedback from fire chiefs proves that he has singularly failed to deliver on his commitment to give some protection to fire and rescue services? Will he come clean and admit that his cuts—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Three questions is too many; the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

[Robert Neill]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition at all. The fire service is protected because its reduction in spending power is 2.2% in the current year and 0.5% in the next year. I have pointed out exactly the measures that many local authorities are taking to save money in the back office and to concentrate on the front line, and I hope that he will encourage authorities to do the same and that he will not engage in scaremongering.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I have already indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that it is for local authorities to decide how best they configure their work force. Let us see what eventually happens. It is important to remember that some of the figures that have been quoted do not bear in mind the fact that the HR1 forms, which are necessary for the purposes of consultation, do not result in job losses. Furthermore, job reconfiguration takes place by many other means that do not result in the figures suggested.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am greatly obliged to the Minister.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

T8. I welcome the scrapping of the previous Government’s top-down housing targets, which caused so much inappropriate development, particularly in my constituency. As the Localism Bill goes through Parliament, however, some developers are land-banking brownfield sites so that they can gain planning permission successfully at appeal on greenfield sites. What are the Government doing to protect such sites in this interim period? Will they consider re-introducing the sequential approach to planning?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right. The mixture of top-down regional targets, together with the removal of a specific reference to a sequential test in planning policy statement 3, did put pressure on greenfield sites. The Government have already changed the definition of brownfield sites to exclude gardens, and in the Localism Bill we have introduced proposals to abolish top-down targets from the regional strategies. The fact that that Bill is making progress through the Commons is a material consideration for developers to bear in mind.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister.

Local Government Funding

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman gets it right. Seemingly none of us knows what Labour’s plan was and the Leader of the Opposition does not know either. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will progress rapidly to the Front Bench, as he is as vague on policy as the leader of his party. If that is the best the hon. Gentleman can do by way of intervention, I suggest he saves his knees the trouble in future.

May I just—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat for a moment? It is always a pleasure to listen to him, but he is swivelling and perambulating. I want to hang upon his every word; he must address the House.

[Robert Neill]

I shall do my best, despite the noise.

What we have seen today is an exhibition of wriggling by the Opposition. They have failed to take on board serious concerns raised by hon. Members. Reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—[Interruption.] I was actually looking at you, Mr Speaker; I think that is courteous too. Reference was also made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward). Hon. Members have made serious points. The need for deficit reduction does not brook significant delay, but fair points have been made about it being appropriate to look not just at formula grant but at other spending powers available to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that we are continuing to do that. We have taken steps to roll more grant into the formula grant, so the arguments that were made on that issue do not sensibly contrast like with like.

We have sought to give more flexibility in these undoubtedly difficult times by ending the ring-fencing of all revenue grants from 2011-12—something that the Labour Government never got around to doing. We are including single, non-ring-fenced, early-intervention grant worth about £2 billion. We are significantly simplifying and streamlining grant funding by rolling about £4 billion of grants in 2010-11 into the unhypothecated formula grant and reducing the total number of grants from 90 to 10. All those measures are designed to bring much greater transparency, as hon. Members on the Government side have pointed out. Despite their 13 years in office, the previous Government neglected to do that, so we need not take lessons from them on fairness or transparency.

As the Secretary of State has indicated, we are continuing the system of floor protection, which will help the most vulnerable authorities. That degree of ring-fencing, plus the other, greater freedoms that will be given in the decentralisation Bill that will be introduced shortly, will significantly assist local authorities in directing their resources to the most vulnerable. The fact that resources are limited is entirely the responsibility of Opposition Members rather than Government Members and the Opposition should never seek to wriggle out of that.

Let me congratulate one or two hon. Members in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) made a particularly thoughtful and considered speech. He talked about the inevitability of floors and ceilings in the current system and the fact that there are real concerns in shire areas as well as urban areas. Any Government have to carry out a balancing act and that is what we seek to do. He and other hon. Members rightly referred to the need to move away from a formula that is past its sell-by date. Unlike our predecessors, this Government have grasped that nettle and committed to a swift review of local government resource in the first six months of next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made fair points on behalf of London councils and the Local Government Association. The Secretary of State has met LGA representatives, and let me tell the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) that I am happy to meet his fire authority; I have met a number of others already. We are protecting fire services, which are getting a lesser degree of reduction, and the profile is different, so steps are being taken in that regard. I will happily meet any authority that seeks to discuss these issues with me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) made an exceedingly well informed and powerful speech. He talked about the need, at times such as these, to move to greater transparency. It was pretty telling that certain Opposition Members rather jeered at the mention of the £500 in relation to transparency. That shows a patronising attitude towards putting ordinary people in the driving seat. Perhaps that is the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) carried out a comprehensive demolition job on the speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and the entire proposition behind the Opposition’s motion. The previous Government were going to cut, and they would have cut as deeply. They were going to eliminate the deficit; the argument was over timing. The state that we discovered when we came into government meant that swift measures were necessary. To pretend otherwise is to behave like the people who set fire to the house and then blame the fire brigade when it comes in to put the fire out. The intellectual bankruptcy of the Opposition is shown by the approach that they have adopted to these matters.

I say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—whom I have known in London government for a long time—yes, I accept that there are councils of all political complexions trying hard in difficult times. My own council is doing so, as is hers. Equally, she will understand that, despite the sympathy that we have for those difficulties, as anyone in the business world will tell her, it is often best and most sensible to take steps towards restructuring at an early stage. That is particularly appropriate in the case of local authorities with a full range of functions. There are good examples not only in London, but across the country of local authorities making real structural and operational change. That needs to be done quickly.

I appreciate the point made by a number of hon. Members about capitalisation. I understand what is said, but it should be remembered that we are making £200 million available for non-equal pay capitalisation. Capitalisation is an exception to the normal accounting processes. Because capitalisation is permission to borrow, that ultimately has impacts upon revenue spend because it has to be paid back. It must therefore be strictly controlled. Although I understand that councils will inevitably say they want more, Government must be realistic and set limits to an exception to the normal process.

That we are not being dogmatic is reflected in the fact that we have adopted a different profile in relation to fire authorities, because experience shows that it takes single-purpose authorities longer to reconfigure their working arrangements than those that have a range of purposes which can be more effectively shared. We have been sensible and proportionate in our approach.

The Secretary of State stressed—I hope Members from all sides will take this on board, as there seemed to be a degree of consensus on the matter—that it is important that local authorities do not resort to the old-fashioned way of salami slicing and, in particular, cutting grant to the voluntary sector. That is usually important. We will fail if local authorities go back to the tried old ways of doing things. We want to encourage them to do otherwise.

That is why, in the localism Bill, we will establish new rights for voluntary and community groups to deliver local services. That is why the Government have created a transition fund of £100 million to be spent in 2010-11. It will support the voluntary and community sector during the first year of the spending round. Through the localism Bill we will also give voluntary and community groups the right to challenge local authorities where they believe that they can run services differently or better. There is a raft of measures to support the voluntary sector, none of which was adopted by the previous Government in their 13 years in office—another example to demonstrate why we need take no lessons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The Government have endeavoured to assist the most vulnerable local councils by increasing the amount of money available in the formula grant that is not ring-fenced, moving more money into formula grant, reducing the amount of ring-fencing and rolling more grants into one. I imagine that when his Government were in office, the right hon. Gentleman would have complained greatly about their removal of working neighbourhoods funding for his city of Sheffield, which will cost the city some £38 million. We will endeavour to find the means to cushion that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The £400 million redevelopment project in the Gloucester Quays in my constituency was unnecessarily delayed for more than a year as a result of being called in by the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that local planning decisions are now precisely that, that they will no longer be subject to frequent interference by the Government and that today we can send a clear message to developers and investors—in Gloucester and elsewhere—that we are open for business without delay?

[Mr Speaker]

Briefer this time.

[Robert Neill]

Localising decision making and planning is central to the Government’s policy. Ministers have made it clear that they will exercise the power to call in only very sparingly where matters of significant national interest and policy are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and John Bercow

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I have no intention of taking lectures from a member of a Cabinet that left this country record levels of debt. Unless there are cuts, by 2014 we will be paying more in interest on the debt than we will in council tax, business rates, inheritance tax and stamp duty combined.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr John Denham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt which this country has been left—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that these are high-octane exchanges, but the House must calm down, because people lower down the Order Paper deserve a chance to get in.

[Robert Neill]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that, if we are to have sustainable, quality local government services, the first thing we have to do is get this country’s economic mess sorted out.