Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in the ballot for private Member’s Bills. I have no idea what will happen tomorrow, so he will have to await the Minister’s response. It may well be that Conservative Back Benchers are very interested in his Bill, and rightly so. On his last point, the Backbench Business Committee has announced that it wants to have a separate inquiry into the regime for private Member’s Bills, and I am sure that it would be interested in taking evidence from the hon. Gentleman.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Leader of the House will know that section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prevents the police from taking any action against a perpetrator of harassment without violence or violent intent if it took place more than six months previously. Will he find time for a debate to protect those people, such as a constituent of mine, who have been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment on the internet and by mobile phone? The six-month threshold should be changed.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The Government have put forward some proposals that deal with antisocial behaviour, and the behaviour she outlines certainly strikes me as antisocial. When appropriate legislation is brought forward to deal with this, there might an opportunity to close any loopholes that exist.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about the loss of life. As my hon. Friend has said, we have committed funds to this project, but I think a public inquiry is needed first. The Highways Agency is aware of the recent accidents and, subject to the result of police investigations into their causes, will look at what measures might be possible to improve the safety of the junction in advance of the major improvements to which my hon. Friend has referred.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate last Thursday’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on child poverty and the forthcoming consultation on how it is measured and on whether this means that the Government are opening up the Child Poverty Act 2010?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and there will be a debate on social mobility in Westminster Hall on 28 June, in which it might be possible for her to raise this issue. We take seriously the commitment to tackle child poverty. As my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary has said, we believe that the current measurements are wrong. Discussions are under way to see whether there are better measurements and whether we need to look beyond having a simple mathematical calculation of poverty and look at some of the root causes to make sure that they are tackled as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly proper question. From my experience, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never knowingly loses an opportunity to debate matters in the House or to answer questions. He is no Macavity. He has attended 11 of the 13 Treasury oral sessions since he took office, which compares well to the previous Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman might have a point, though, and I will discuss the matter with Treasury colleagues, if there is a problem. I believe, however, that we will see the Chancellor the Exchequer regularly here answering questions on economic matters, as he would wish to do.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May I put in a plea for an extension to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, which is still limited, despite there being so many particularly interesting matters relating to rural affairs and food?

[Mr Heath]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. The trouble is that we cannot extend one Question Time without reducing another or lengthening the interval between them. I know that the House wants to hold Ministers and Departments to account and to fulfil its scrutiny role, and we have to find a balance in order to ensure that that is done efficiently and effectively, but I hear what she says.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for HS2. I think I am right in saying that we have recently had at least one debate on HS2. Whether there is appetite for another one in the immediate future I am not sure, but I am grateful to him for his support for the project.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The main difference between the rich and the poor is, of course, that the rich have money to save and the poor have to spend nearly every penny they have. Will the Leader of the House please give time for a debate in the run-up to the next Budget on the obvious merits of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 before 2015, lifting more people out of income tax altogether?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that section 29 of the coalition agreement sets out a commitment to raise the threshold to £10,000 during this Parliament, and the Deputy Prime Minister is making a statement today. This will be taken on board by the Chancellor as he prepares his Budget statement.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Leader of the House will have noticed that the number of questions submitted by MPs to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Transport has risen to about the equivalent of those submitted to the main Departments, which give an hour’s worth of responses from Ministers, rather than three quarters of an hour. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will consider raising the time to an hour, to ensure that the farmers and everyone with transport problems in my constituency, including young people, will have a chance to hear some answers.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I wonder whether she has been able to identify which Department might have less time, in order to accommodate the extra time for the Departments that she mentions.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the coalition agreement, he will see that we made it absolutely clear that once an e-petition got 100,000 signatures it would be “eligible for debate”—I think that is the wording—so there is no question of my or anyone else’s misleading anyone about that. His suggestion that there should be extra time specifically for e-petitions is a helpful one. He will know that the Procedure Committee is reviewing the parliamentary calendar and that we are committed to reviewing the work of the Backbench Business Committee. It may be that those two reviews work together in tandem and that we are able to find extra space within the calendar to debate e-petitions. I know that this is an issue on which the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has strong views.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Government’s cancer strategy for England recognises that access to radiotherapy is critical to improving outcomes. Radiotherapy takes only 5% of the estimated total NHS spend on cancer care but 50% of patients can benefit from it. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen and supports Cancer Research UK’s “A voice for radiotherapy” petition, which has been signed by more than 36,000 people and will be handed in to Downing street this afternoon? As 2011 is the year of radiotherapy, may we have an urgent debate this year on better and fairer access to radiotherapy in England?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the profile of Cancer Research UK’s petition. I agree that it would be helpful to have a debate and to see what more we can do to reduce any delays in the use of radiotherapy or, indeed, chemotherapy once people have had their operation. There will be an opportunity at Health questions to raise this issue quite soon but, in the meantime, she might like to put in for a Westminster Hall debate so that we can do justice to the important issue she has just touched on.

Electricity Transmission (Protection of Landscape)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Lady gets under way, may I appeal to Members who are unaccountably leaving the Chamber, and not remaining to hear her, to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can afford the same courtesy to her that we would want extended to ourselves in such circumstances?

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require factors other than cost to be considered for schemes for the transmission of high voltage electricity where infrastructure would impact on the visual and other amenity of a landscape; to provide that in certain cases such infrastructure be installed by visually unobtrusive works; to require that public consultation be undertaken and inform the selection of the method and technology for the transmission infrastructures used; and for connected purposes.

The purpose of the Bill is simple. It seeks to update the Electricity Act 1989, which recognises the transmission of high-voltage electricity only on cables strung between transmission towers, which we all know as pylons. Concerns have been raised by thousands of people throughout the country, many of whom live in rural areas and do not have the protection afforded to those in urban or suburban communities, where power lines are automatically put underground.

People who live in towns and cities, however, often enjoy their leisure time and holidays in the countryside, and I draw attention particularly to the 26,000 people whose livelihoods are dependent on tourism in my constituency, just one of many that would be damaged beyond belief if new lines on 152 ft pylons were introduced. The Somerset levels were in contention to become the 17th world heritage site until the proposal was made.

There are such problems for rural communities all over the country, as new pylons are planned to bring new supplies of energy from whatever source, be it turbines, gas, coal, wind, nuclear or tidal. What happens when we want to install cable TV? Automatically, we dig up high streets and roads all over the place. What happens when we host the Olympics? Around the whole Olympic village, power cables have been put underground. We do not suspend blue water pipes or yellow gas pipes from transmission towers, so why do we do so for electricity power cables?

National Grid has drawn to my attention the fact that it is holding a competition on pylon design, but that is purely a diversion and certainly not the answer to the country’s questions about transmission. The county council, district councils and parish councils are all against the proposals, but all that National Grid, our monopoly supplier, does is hear; it does not listen. There are alternatives, and they are underground and undersea.

The Bill recognises several factors, including the voice of the public and the value of consultation, which should not just be done on the nod; it should be about listening, not just hearing. Consultation responses should inform the method and technology for the infrastructure used. This is also about being green. Losses during transmission are about 7% once one gets the power to the cables. It is clear that undergrounding or putting cables undersea would reduce those losses significantly.

There are health reasons why we should put cables underground. The Government continue to be very poorly advised on the adverse health effects associated with high-voltage overhead power lines. Extensive studies have established a clear correlation between increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult leukaemia, adult brain tumours, motor neurone disease, miscarriage and Alzheimer’s disease and the electromagnetic fields associated with such lines. The risk to children and adults easily satisfies a cost-benefit analysis in favour of burying high-voltage power lines.

The UK Health Protection Agency considers only a fraction—typically less than 10%—of the available scientific evidence. Included in major studies showing increased risk of childhood leukaemia are the 2005 study by Dr Gerald Draper of Oxford university, published in the British Medical Journal, and studies in Tasmania and, particularly, in Iran, where all power lines go overground. One of the many studies showing increased risks of Alzheimer’s disease is the 2008 whole-population study by Dr Anke Huss of the university of Berne, which revealed particular risks in populations living near overhead power lines in Switzerland.

National Grid is not the National Gallery, the National Trust or the national health service, but it is a massive, monopoly, multinational provider with a primary aim—to seek the maximum return for its shareholders. We have no choice but to use this super-sized company to get our power from its source to the places where it can be distributed to us in our homes and businesses. In June 2009, National Grid’s own chief executive officer, Steve Holliday, went on the record to say that undergrounding transmission lines was a “ no-brainer”. Cost is not everything.

In October 2010, Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, requested an independent and authoritative evaluation of undergrounding. The Department of Energy and Climate Change sought the assistance of the Institution of Engineering and Technology as an independent assessor of that study by a company called KEMA. The study was to be funded by none other than National Grid. None the less, it went ahead, and the results were meant to be produced on 25 January. However, nothing happened. On 3 June, the IET issued a press release stating that KEMA had not been able to issue a report with which it was satisfied owing to a lack of data from National Grid, and so the IET could not endorse its work.

It is surely time to open up this debate—to put it right into the light and demand that all these figures be provided. I am calling for openness in deciding whether power cables should be put underground or undersea instead of overground. The costs are not an issue—we all pay them through our bills. In November 2009, National Grid admitted that the cost of undersea or undergrounding would put just 1% on our electricity bills. Siemens has produced figures showing that using gas-insulated lines would reduce the whole-life costs of underground cables to under half the costs of pylons.

I pay tribute to the work of my many colleagues across the House who are interested in this subject, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), as well as many others. There have been objections to pylons in Wales, Scotland, the north-east, the south-west and throughout East Anglia. I understand that there is a statement on record from Carwyn Jones, the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff, who said no to pylons too.

I also recognise the work of the many pressure groups. I am grateful to some of them for information, in particular Pylon Moor Pressure, No Moor Pylons, Save Our Valley, REVOLT, Bury Not Blight, Highlands before Pylons, North East Pylon Pressure, Montgomeryshire Against Pylons and Stour Valley Underground.

It is time to consider the impact of what we are doing to our countryside, our tourism, our health and our environment. We know the cost of everything, but this matter indicates that we might not spot the value of what we have. Changing the law would at least give us the opportunity to get it right for everyone’s sake. I am delighted to introduce this measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tessa Munt, Martin Horwood, Roger Williams, Sir Robert Smith, Tim Farron, Mr Tim Yeo, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Glyn Davies, Natascha Engel, Dr Alan Whitehead, Mrs Anne McGuire and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.

Tessa Munt accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 215).

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, you heard a point of order from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which suggested that the Government had not made Parliament aware of fundamental changes in tax policy by a statement in the House. I believe that that was incorrect. I think that she was referring to the ring fence expenditure supplement for the North sea fiscal regime. I am sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, that that was presaged in the March Budget. Further to that, a very detailed written ministerial statement was issued by the Treasury this morning and was available in the House of Commons Library at 10 o’clock. Indeed, had the hon. Lady taken the trouble to look at the Order Paper, she would have found it at No. 3 on the list of today’s written ministerial statements. I just wanted to put the record straight.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to develop the argument further when considering the Public Bodies Bill. Debates on Select Committee reports are now the province of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, so he may like to present himself at 1 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon at her salon.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House give time to discuss the important matter of the process of recruiting a new Clerk of the House of Commons? As a member of the Administration Committee, I received a copy of the advert for that post yesterday. At a time when the Government are bearing down so hard on salaries and bonuses in the public and private sectors, when there are job losses and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to approve all salaries in excess of that of the Prime Minister, I wonder whether the appropriate assessment has taken place of the roles involved in the Clerk’s job and whether, in fact, the residence, the uniform allowance and the £200,000 salary should be subject to some sort of discussion, along with an assessment of the criteria, rather than there being an automatic assumption about that.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have now seen the advertisement to which she refers, which I understand was approved by you, Mr Speaker. The salary of the Clerk of the House and chief executive is linked to judicial salaries and is in the permanent secretary band, which reflects the Clerk’s position as independent constitutional adviser to the Speaker and the House. The Clerk is appointed by the Crown, by Letters Patent, and is not an employee of the House of Commons Commission. However, it is right that all public bodies, including the House of Commons, should take robust decisions on their expenditure at the current time and I support any steps to do that.

Business of the House

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot find time for such a debate, because the right hon. Lady would not be able to appear in this Chamber. However, I am sure she will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and will want to respond to it in the appropriate way.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

When I was elected, I tried to do the right thing and save money by using second-class post. I discovered that of the five small envelopes used, three are, illogically, more expensive if second-class post is used rather than first-class post. One of the differences amounts to £2.24 for a 250 batch. According to my back-of-the-envelope maths, including the printing costs for two types of envelopes based on 2009 usage, a saving of £15,500 a year could be made. The print runs are huge; the set-up costs are minimal. The House of Commons uses 2,000,703 first-class envelopes, costing £1,000,646. If 5% were urgent and 95% were sent second class, the postage savings would amount to more than £250,000 of taxpayers’ money. Will the Business Secretary please promote and encourage the use of second-class envelopes by—

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist, but I am afraid that the question is too long. We have got the thrust of it, and we are grateful.

Members’ Salaries

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Here we are again. On 3 July 2008, the Speaker did not select my amendment. Last year, the same thing happened. Today, again, the Speaker has not selected my amendment. Democracy has not been the better for it. My amendment in 2008 would have prevented the practice of flipping homes. My amendment tonight would have reaffirmed the principle that we should not determine our own pay.

I will not vote for or against my pay tonight, and I urge others to do the same—not to abstain, but to refuse to vote. The motion removes the principle of our not determining our pay. It is not simply a decision on the SSRB proposals; it revokes the decision on independence without anything more than a vague promise that, at some stage, the Government will get around to tabling amendments to have IPSA set pay. The Government have had plenty of time in recent weeks to table such an amendment, and they have chosen not to do so.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

If everything is to go to IPSA, so be it, but I am in the position, as a new Member, of not knowing what will happen to my staff pay 11 days hence, from 1 April. That is a disgraceful situation in which to be. None of us can work out what will happen to our staff. I have to renew contracts in 11 days, and I do not know what to do.

[John Mann]

That shows the muddle that the Government and Parliament have got into. Instead of resolving those problems, whether one or other of us likes it or not, in a way that is crystal clear, within which we can work and that the public can see, we go round in circles. Here we go again.

Having been through the pain, which is not yet over, of the expenses scandal, and eventually decided that we should not determine our own pay, and having all allegedly agreed the principle, we are suddenly back where we started—deciding our own pay. The issue tonight is not the amount of the pay—that is a small part of the matter. Of course, it will always be important to Members and even more important to the general public. However, to breach the principle so unnecessarily and cack-handedly lays us open to ridicule. The House should get its act together on pay and expenses and say that we will not break the principle of not setting our pay, conditions or expenses, because that is precisely the problem that got us into the scandal in the first place. We must learn the lesson of putting it outside, keeping it there and not interfering with it. Whether it is comfortable or uncomfortable, whatever the level, whether we like it or the general public do not like, it should be determined independently, not by us.

I appeal to Members to refuse to vote either way on the pay, thereby not breaching the principle that it should be determined independently or agreeing that it should be brought back in-house because if we do that, we will rue the day, and pay and expenses will come back again and again to bite us. We should put that behind us.