Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the Clerk has just advised me, my judgment on the SO No. 24 debate—I know this because we discussed it earlier—could have been impacted by a Government decision to table a motion for a substantive debate tomorrow. I am sorry but I cannot overstate the importance of accuracy and correctness in these matters.

My decision about an SO No. 24 application is independent of, and can be separable and distinguishable from, a Government decision to table a substantive motion. It is entirely open to the Government to do that if they so wish. I was pleased to see the Father of the House nodding from a sedentary position when I was making that point. I do have the advantage, procedurally, of being correct.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Given what the Prime Minister just said about the urgency of taking action on Saturday and the fact that she did want to listen and respond to the House, the business statement that we have just heard is utterly extraordinary and flies in the face of everything we heard during the Prime Minister’s statement. My constituents expect me to tell them how I would have responded to this matter, and it is a matter of record that may last for many years in the future.

I support entirely the SO24 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), but it is not the same as an amendable motion, in Government time, where we as Members of Parliament are asked to justify to our constituents our view on this matter. The response of the Leader of the House is utterly unsatisfactory and demeans Parliament. She should go away and come back with a much better response.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have already said, the Prime Minister has just answered questions for three and a quarter hours. She gave individual responses to individual questions, which is a much more detailed response than in a general debate. We are now looking forward to the urgent debate put forward by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), and that is what we are all waiting for.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I am pleased to hear that, but I wish that it had been indicated to everyone at the time. It would have been fantastic if it had been 564-nil.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

One point being made from the Government Benches is that it is a matter for the Government to decide whether they vote. However, with regard to the relevance of this place, many people watch debates that come up, on Opposition days and at other times, and they expect a vote, and if there is no vote then they believe that the view of Parliament has been heard and they expect things to change as a result. If the Government’s approach is to allow motions through but then not carry them through in policy terms, then people will rightly think that we are just a talking shop.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I keep saying, the Government seem to be governing by press release and press announcement, rather than by coming to the House to explain exactly what is going on with regard to policy. That policy has now been agreed. Actually, when we think about it, is it committed expenditure? The Chancellor seems to be saying what he wants but it is not even committed expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will obviously want to check his Twitter account for the answer to that one, since he checked it for the initial answer. The Government take these issues extremely serious. I am trying to explain why we chose not to vote on those political point scoring Opposition day motions.

To this day, I hear Labour suggesting that austerity is a choice or that we have deliberately increased public sector debt, but the fact is that in Labour’s last year in office, the Treasury spent £153 billion more than it received in taxes. The House will recall the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) saying that there was no money left, which was a painfully honest statement from a Labour politician. In the seven years since, we have managed to reduce that overspend from £153 billion a year to £45 billion last year, but it is that annual overspend that increases debt, which now stands at £65,000 per household in this country. The only way to start tackling the debt is by first getting rid of the overspend. If we do not tackle it, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay, but we do not hear Labour telling young people these truths.

[Toby Perkins]

I have no idea how that last paragraph has anything to do with the debate that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has secured, so let me bring the Leader of the House back to the matter in hand. Having just had a general election in which the Prime Minister ran away from debates, but then at the end claimed there were no serious debates during the election, it is deeply significant that the things we debate in this Parliament and the votes we have here matter. Will the Government therefore simply make a commitment that they will not treat Opposition day debates in the same way as they have treated Back-Bench debates? That is all we want to hear today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am not surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say he has no idea what that last paragraph represented because I was seeking to explain why this Government are not playing Labour’s party political games. The Opposition do not face up to the reality of the mess they left this country in, and our children and grandchildren will end up paying for their mess unless we can get back to living within our means. That means that in their party political motions we chose to leave them to their games. Conservative Members will always balance the need for fairness to our superb public sector workers with the need for fairness to the next generation.

EU Referendum (Privy Council)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we know the President of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks. The President is a most illustrious individual, but the last time I looked he was not a member of the Privy Council. We will leave it there as I think it was a rhetorical question.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is clinging to the defence that he is using today, but it is clear that the Secretary of State for Justice wants people to believe that he was the source and that the story is true. Given that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), whom we all respect tremendously on such matters, considers this to be treason, the Leader of the House’s rather flippant approach massively undermines the importance of this important role.

[Chris Grayling]

I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. Someone cannot be found guilty of an offence when none has taken place. My predecessor has said that the story is categorically untrue, so that really should be the end of the matter.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to do both, and I think we should say very clearly as a Parliament and as a nation that the persecution of Christians around the world is to be abhorred. This is a world that should respect the freedom of individuals to follow their religion. No one should be persecuted for their religion. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that around the world, some Christian minorities are being persecuted for their religion. It is for this country as a beacon of liberal democracy to stand up for them—we should do that and we will.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that yesterday the House allowed my ten-minute rule Bill on the English national anthem to pass to Second Reading. Downing Street has briefed that it is open to allowing time for this to be properly pursued. It would be a great shame—there is a huge amount of interest in the subject—if when the Bill next comes before us, it is simply batted away without a debate or a vote. What steps can the right hon. Gentleman take to enable the voice of England to be heard and to decide on whether to have a different national anthem?

[Chris Grayling]

Yesterday’s debate was certainly interesting, but I am not sure that there was complete unity among his Front-Bench colleagues on the subject. I believe “Jerusalem” to be a magnificent part of our musical heritage, but I have to say that as it was being broadcast on a loop yesterday morning around Westminster and as I heard it for the 20th time, I was beginning to think it might be appropriate on selective occasions. I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he is doing on an issue that will be discussed further. It is a matter that he could bring to the attention of the Backbench Business Committee and have it debated on the Floor of the House if it agreed to that.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Well, we do have Scottish votes for Scottish laws: it is called the Scottish Parliament. I keep listening to the outrage from SNP Members, but let me remind them, first, that they will not be excluded in future from any vote in this Chamber that they currently participate in; and, secondly, that when they discuss these matters away from this place, they appear to be rather less outraged than how they come across in this place. That was clear from a quotation that I read out last week.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am one of 11 million Britons who suffer from hearing loss. Yesterday, there was a parliamentary reception for Action on Hearing Loss, and it was revealed that some health authorities, including North Staffordshire, no longer prescribe hearing aids for people with moderate hearing loss. That can be incredibly isolating for them. One in six people in Britain has a hearing loss, and it is likely to be one in five by 2035, so may we have a debate in Government time about how health authorities and health resources can be used to ensure that people with hearing loss do not suffer unnecessary isolation?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on an issue that transcends party lines. Good work is done by all political parties in raising awareness of the challenges faced by people with hearing loss. Rightly or wrongly, of course, we have taken a decision to devolve responsibility to local areas for commissioning and spending decisions on healthcare matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy will encourage those parts of the country that might have taken a decision with which he disagrees to change their views. It is a consequence of devolution that there will sometimes be different decisions in different areas, whether we support them or not.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is important to say that the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education involves the expansion of a successful school. If that expansion goes ahead, it will mean that a successful school will be able to offer more places to more students, but it is the expansion of a successful school. Our policy is always to ensure that every successful school—grammar school, academy or otherwise—is able to expand to offer places to young people who need that support.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In Chesterfield over the past few years we have been conscious of the huge difficulties in accessing GP appointments. The Government’s policy, which seems to suggest that GP contracts are over-generous at a time when the country is desperately struggling to attract GPs, and the moves that they are taking in relation to junior doctors, which are discouraging people from pursuing a career in that field, make the problems worse. May we have a debate in Government time to ascertain what the Government’s strategy is to improve access to GP appointments?

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary was in the House on Tuesday answering questions. It is his policy to encourage the development of a seven-day NHS to improve access to GP services. He is working with the relevant representative groups on plans for employment structures for junior hospital doctors to ensure that we provide the right framework for that to happen, and also to provide the right support for our junior doctors.

Deregulation Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not agree. I think that my hon. Friend makes a huge contribution in the House, although I do not always agree with him.

It was made clear in the briefing the Government published in 2007 that there was no intention of affecting prior deposits. It was also never the intention that landlords who had protected deposits and who had given their tenants information about that protection should then have to reissue the same information about the deposit protection each and every time the tenancy was renewed, although the same deposit would continue to be protected in the same scheme from one tenancy to the next. That, however, was the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v. Marino Rodrigues. As a result of that decision, a large number of landlords were at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, despite having done what the sector and successive Governments considered to be the right thing. Our proposals are broadly similar to those made by my hon. Friend, and will protect landlords who follow Government and tenancy deposit scheme advice from financial penalties and delayed possession proceedings by providing a grace period and making other provision.

New clause 21 deals with short-term lets. It is aimed at an outdated, 40-year old law that restricts householders in London from being able temporarily to let out their homes, or even a spare room, for less than three months without having first secured planning permission for change of use. Currently, failure to secure planning permission in Greater London for short-term letting can result in a fine of up to £20,000. That is not the case in the rest of England, where property owners can let out their homes on a short-term basis without needing permission to do so.

During the 2012 Olympics while we were all encouraging visitors to come to London and join in the celebrations, some people who welcomed visitors into their homes were subject to enforcement action from London boroughs. That was not universal, but I do applaud the boroughs that entered into the spirit and encouraged residents to let out their homes or a spare room. Wimbledon is on at the moment, of course, and Londoners have traditionally rented out spare rooms and homes to people visiting the capital for the championships. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give London residents more of the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the country.

I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He made the point that sensitive handling is needed to ensure that regulations covering companies that sub-let regularly are not circumvented by these changes. The regulations have to be properly dealt with in a sensitive way.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with what the Minister says about the sensitivity of this matter and the importance of getting it right. The London property market’s problem at the moment is certainly not that it is too long term. With that in mind, does the Minister think there has been sufficient consultation and enough opportunity to consider the full implications, given that the proposal has been brought forward long after all the pre-legislative scrutiny has been finished?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

I would never describe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s plans as mad, but on this occasion I do not agree with them.

Turning to Government amendment 12 and the amendments to remove clause 17, we had a lively debate about insolvency practitioners in Committee. Of course, the profession deserves a great deal of credit for the good work it does in rescuing struggling businesses that still have a viable future, saving jobs and preserving value in the economy. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in Committee, the World Bank rates our Insolvency Service the seventh best in the world, and it is a service that other countries admire. This has been achieved through innovative policy developments, and we believe that the one we are discussing now—the system of partial authorisation introduced by clause 17 —is a positive development for the sector, for the profession, for creditors and for insolvent companies and individuals.

The proposed system will reduce barriers to entry by enabling would-be insolvency practitioners to qualify in respect of only corporate or personal insolvency; if they want to, they can continue to do both, but those who wish to specialise will benefit from shorter training periods and lower training costs. That will increase competition and bring down fees, and the profession will benefit too. If a firm decides to fund someone through qualification, it will cost them less than it does now. The amount of money involved is substantial: BPP, the leading provider of professional training, charges £3,470 for each of the three courses needed for the professional examinations, and there are many fees on top of that, so we are talking about significant sums—not hundreds of pounds but thousands. The Government have heard arguments against partial authorisation, but have decided to continue with the policy.

Amendment 85, which would remove clause 30, is misguided. It is intended primarily to halt the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and is based on a misunderstanding of what we are doing. It would bring to an end all the excellent work we have undertaken with industry and many interested bodies in the sustainability, access and environmental sectors to rationalise the plethora of local standards by regularising them through the building control system. It would also leave in place the considerable range of excessive and ill-considered costs imposed on the housing industry by some local authorities. These standards are holding back development and are a mess.

On journalistic materials, I did promise earlier that we would introduce extensions to the power of the criminal procedure rules to cover the procedure for making certain sorts of applications, ensuring that journalists do not lose any of the statutory protections they currently have.

I need not address the remaining minor and technical amendments at this stage. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s time, but this is a big group of amendments.

[Toby Perkins]

I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.

The fact that the Solicitor-General had to whistle through so many new clauses and amendments says a tremendous amount about the Bill and the way the Government have approached it. We have 49 minutes to debate 43 different new clauses, amendments and new schedules. It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy that this House is being asked to whistle through the approval of very important measures that this Government have brought before us at a moment’s notice.

The Bill was originally an unambitious, predominantly inconsequential list of minor changes to the way we sell yarn and chocolate liqueurs that most people would not much mind or particularly appreciate, mixed in with a few substantially more dangerous provisions. However, it has morphed almost daily into a leviathan of a Bill with a multitude of ill-thought-out, scarcely consulted on clauses, the aims of which are unclear, the consequences of which are uncertain, the benefits of which are unproven, and the coherence of which is absolutely impossible to fathom. If this is the final piece of legislation this Government introduce, it will be a fitting climax for them: unloved, owned by no one, with few advocates, whose central purpose has long since been obscured, and who exist now only to be seen to be doing something, in the hope that, if they hang around for a bit, the polls might take a turn for the better.

The ultimate summary of the Government’s approach was heard when the Solicitor-General said in response to the very reasonable criticisms of his previous Bill that we are where we are. In fact, the Deregulation Bill could be the “we are where we are” Bill. Virtually no one is speaking up for it or offering much in the way of support for it.

We oppose clause 17 because we believe it will dumb down the profession. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, we have one of the best insolvency professions in the world. The Bill will de-professionalise what is a very successful profession. It will give an advantage to large insolvency firms, working against the smaller firms and new entrants to the market that Members on both sides of this House profess to support. In Committee, we warned that this change would represent a regulatory move, rather than a deregulatory one. Throughout their response, the Government were unable to come up with any serious support for the Bill.

The Solicitor-General said that the purpose of the Bill—its benefit—was to save money. When he was asked about that in Committee, he said that it costs £4,000 for each of these exams, and if someone only has to do two of them, they will save £4,000. He was also very critical of the insolvency profession, and then suggested that that saving will be passed on to the customers of insolvency practitioners. Many practitioners have been in the industry for some 20 years. The idea that, 20 years later, they are going to give some sort of discount because back then they saved themselves £4,000 bears no scrutiny.

In Committee, the Solicitor-General described responses to the consultation on this change as “mixed”. That was an extraordinarily generous euphemism. Excluding the Secretary of State, just one out of seven recognised professional bodies in the field supports partial licences, and 75% of small firms undertake both corporate and personal insolvency procedures for commercial reasons, so it is the large players that are likely to be able to adopt partial licences. If any of the benefits that the Solicitor-General has laid out actually come to pass—I strongly suspect they will not—they will exclude small players from the insolvency market and make it very much the preserve of large companies. He is setting out to dumb down the profession rated by the World Bank as the seventh best in the world, judged on the basis of the amount returned to creditors and the speed of the process—two key aspects we would expect an insolvency regime to have. When I asked a turnaround specialist from Germany who was working in Chesterfield why he was working in the UK rather than back in his homeland, he told me, “Because your insolvency regime is so much better than ours.” He gave a list of reasons why we should be proud of what we have. Amazingly, this Government are coming to this House to make changes that would de-professionalise something that is tremendously successful and which do not enjoy the support of the industry. The major trade body representing insolvency practitioners calls for clause 17 to be not amended but scrapped, yet the Solicitor-General says he is doing this on behalf of the industry. This is a bizarre set of circumstances.

The Solicitor-General will be creating a three-tier system where, rather than there being one set of exams, people will operate in three different ways. The implications for Scotland, whose insolvency regime is very different, have not been laid out. Our amendment would delete the clause. Even if one accepts the Government’s arguments on personal insolvency specialists not needing corporate insolvency, saying in reverse that people who do corporate insolvency, which will often involve aspects of personal insolvency, do not need to have studied personal insolvency is bizarre. We think the Government are very misguided, as does the industry, and we strongly call on them to do the right thing, support our amendment and drop this clause.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) want to discuss their proposals, and despite the lack of scrutiny that these clauses will get, I will ensure that they get an opportunity to do so. However, I shall quickly speak on those measures from the Front Bench.

On Sunday trading, I support entirely what the Minister said, and I will not be supporting new clauses 10 to 14 for the following reasons: the Government promised that their emergency legislation for the Olympics was not a Trojan horse leading to further liberalisation of Sunday trading hours; the importance of Sunday trading legislation for employees; the broad, cross-party coalition supporting our current legislation in this area; the impact these proposed changes would have on small businesses and the convenience sector, which is very much under pressure; and the fact that these measures are being proposed in the way that they are, without any consultation on an issue that divides opinion tremendously. All those things mean that this Bill is entirely the wrong place for such measures to be introduced.

On new clauses 20 and 21, the Labour party is, as we said previously, absolutely committed to greater security for tenants and a long-term approach to the private rented market. It is revealing that at a time when the Labour party is proposing policies that will give tenants more security and certainty in their tenure, the Government are introducing something that specifically encourages more shorter-term lets. Just because their priorities are wrong, it does not mean that, individually, there is no merit in these new clauses, but they need to be considered carefully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has made a strong case, and London Members from across the House are deeply concerned that the London letting market does not suffer from the problem of being too long term. I am very concerned that there should be proper consultation on these new clauses.

We think that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is important. We are very conscious that the Green party leader of Brighton council recently slammed the entire principle of right to buy, describing it as the

“biggest privatisation programme this country has ever seen.”

Right to buy is important. We need to help people who otherwise would not be able to access the housing market, as with so many in Cameron’s Britain; in 1997, it took the average family three years to save for a deposit on a home but now it takes about 22 years. Given that catastrophic record of this Government, in particular, it is important that right to buy is available, but it is also important that these properties are replaced.

As I have said, this group contains a huge number of measures. We will seek to divide the House on amendments 84 and 2. It is entirely wrong that Members have had so little time to discuss this group, but in order to give people the opportunity to discuss their proposals, I will leave my comments there.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I do take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rugby borough council on its award from the FSB. The point he raises is very important, and that is why we are taking forward recommendations in Lord Young’s report to simplify and standardise bidding, payment and advertising of contracts, and to reduce complexity costs and inconsistency when trying to sell to more than one local authority. That will include the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy such as prequalification questionnaires for small tenders. We hope to ensure greater access for SMEs to all the procurement that is available across the public sector.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Following yesterday’s performance by the Prime Minister—and bearing in mind that when we return in September for three days of the second week we will discuss not any of the issues around lack of growth in our economy, but how our politics is done—can we have any confidence at all that he and this Government will take seriously the real concerns about the way the Conservative party is funded? My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made it clear that the Labour party is going to deal with its issues; when are this Government going to deal with their issues around party funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite interested that the hon. Gentleman says he wants to talk about issues relating to funding in September. I have just announced business relating to transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration. That will be at the forefront of business here. The point he makes is that he does not want to talk about growth in the economy, and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not raise issues relating to growth in the economy and employment. Why? Because we are seeing growth: we are seeing increases in employment and we are seeing unemployment coming down because we are seeing a healing economy, one that is in complete contrast to the earlier 7.2% reduction in gross domestic product, a consequence of the bust that happened under the last Government.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will carry on for a moment, if I may.

Some argue that the boundaries review may spend further money this year and then not be approved—that argument was adduced in the Lords. One might equally say that several millions have been spent and the process should be completed. Either way, the amendments in lieu, if passed today, would settle that question. They would bring the review into effect without any further political interference, which, given the independent character of the review, has merit in any case.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith).

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. It is undoubtedly true that the question could be settled one way or another today. However, given that the Liberal Democrats are clear that they will not support him, is not the most sensible thing for the House to finish this and not waste any more money on it, rather than continue with the process when it has already been made clear that what was a very political initial manoeuvre is now doomed to fail?

[Mr Lansley]

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my modest rhetoric might have no impact on my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Surely that is the whole point of this debate and, in particular, of my colleagues and I tabling the amendments in lieu—precisely because it would be in the interests of this House to settle the matter today. It would be in the interests of this House, not least in its relationship with their lordships, to say, “We have settled it today. The boundaries review should be completed, as we legislated for it to happen, and there should be no more interference by either House, for any reason or any party.” There is an independent review; it should be completed. Before we come to the amendments in lieu, however, we first have to decide whether the Lords were right to amend the Bill as they did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I am always happy to discuss voting systems. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing for proportional representation rather than first past the post, that is a debate that we can have—although not, I hasten to add, during the short time that remains to us today.

[Toby Perkins]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

Yes, but then I must make progress.

[Toby Perkins]

My right hon. Friend’s point about the number of people who are not on the electoral register is one of the most fundamental in the debate. If Government Members had given us some sense that they were taking the position seriously—if they had paid attention to some of the reasoned amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—it would have been much easier for us to take them seriously today.

[Sadiq Khan]

The Government’s complacency on the subject of the missing 6.5 million is breathtaking, and we should see it in a wider context as well. At the same time as the size of the elected legislature is being reduced through the cutting of 50 MPs, the number of unelected peers is increasing by about 50 a year. Since 2010, 117 new peers have been created at a cost of £18 million a year. The amount that will be saved by the cutting of those 50 MPs is £13.6 million. We understand from No. 10 briefings—and the Leader of the House has confirmed today—that the creation of more peers will be announced shortly.

However, it is not just the cost that should worry us. The Government are becoming more powerful. We have more Government special advisers that at any time in our history. Moreover, these changes will reduce the size of the legislature while leaving the Executive untouched, thus making Governments more powerful at the expense of elected MPs representing their constituents. Accepting the Lords amendment would enable the reduction in the number of MPs to be delayed, which would have the added advantage of giving us time to consider the right balance between Executive and legislature.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

On the latter point, I can, because I was Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which has taken action against Members who have leaked Select Committee documents. Members have been suspended from the House for doing so. The other issues are more a matter for the House than for the Leader of the House. I am sure that the Chair of the PAC has noted what my hon. Friend has said about the process of instituting a leak inquiry.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Members across the House are growing increasingly concerned about the evidence of interest rate swap mis-selling by banks. Members are hearing about firms in their constituencies that are being put out of business because of such hedge fund products. May we have an urgent debate on this issue, and ensure that banks do not foreclose on businesses while investigating whether mis-selling took place only then to have to go back and make compensatory payments after that business has collapsed?

[Sir George Young]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Earlier this week we had a debate on the Financial Services Bill before it went to the other place, and in the Queen’s Speech there is a commitment to legislate on banking reform, so there may be an opportunity in the near future to address these issues.