Business of the House (10 September)
Tom Brake Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That at the sitting on Wednesday 10 September, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jesse Norman relating to Select Committee on Governance of the House not later than two hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
Last Thursday during the business statement, the Leader of the House announced, following representations from and discussions with the Backbench Business Committee, that on Wednesday of this week the House would consider a motion to establish a Select Committee on governance of the House. The motion to establish the Select Committee has been found time additional to that already provided for Back-Bench business. Given the level of interest throughout the House and the importance to the House of resolving its governance arrangements in a timely manner, the Government have brought forward the motion to allow the issue to be considered and resolved after the moment of interruption on Wednesday should that prove necessary.
The House will be aware that the major item of business being taken on Wednesday is the general debate on Ukraine, the middle east, north Africa and security. That is obviously a significant debate, and it is important that the House is given an adequate opportunity to debate those issues. That is why the Government have agreed, on this occasion, to provide Government time for the debate on international issues, in addition to the statements and other debating opportunities that the House has had to consider those issues. I hope the House will agree that this business motion will facilitate the business of the House in a sensible way, and I commend it to the House.
Summer Adjournment
Tom Brake Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I have the rather daunting task of responding in the 30 minutes that remain to the 26 contributions we have heard this afternoon. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate.
As is customary, we first heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who has just returned to his seat. He displayed a high level of optimism—perhaps his level of optimism was the same as that of many English people about our chances of success in the World cup. His optimism was for his chance of promotion in the reshuffle. I encourage him to maintain that level of optimism.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about working-class Conservatives. There was a bit of banter between those on the two sides of the House about who could claim the highest number of working-class antecedents. He touched on many other issues: his concerns about Barclays bank; the residential home and its lift service; the probation service and its payments; and the Royal Mail dog awareness campaign. I can confirm that I, too, participated in the campaign. I was able to confirm to Royal Mail that, like most Members of the House, I did indeed have my backside bitten by a dog on one occasion when out canvassing. I am not quite sure why the person I canvassed, having failed to open the door to me when I knocked on it, felt it was necessary, at the point when I was leaving her house and had just reached the gate, to let her dog out so that it could viciously attack me.
My hon. Friend talked about Southend being the alternative city of culture, which I think is probably true. He talked also about diabetes treatment, an issue that comes up frequently in the House. He is right to highlight that. It is a very significant health issue with the potential to drain a very high level of resource from the NHS. He talked about mental health. He is right that in the past it has perhaps been the Cinderella health service, but the Government have tried, through parity of esteem and additional funding, to recognise mental health as something to which we need to give greater priority. He also talked about the importance of dealing with arthritis.
My hon. Friend talked about the concept of a national cemetery. I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort on that. I have tried to identify which Department would like to take responsibility, but at the moment it is proving somewhat difficult to identify the lead Government Department. He bemoaned the fact that Southend did not have as many centenarians, but said that he was working to boost their numbers. Finally, he talked about the world record-breaking attempt that Rossi Ice Cream is going to conduct for the largest number of people licking an ice cream. It was not clear to me whether it was the same ice cream they would be licking, or whether they would each have a separate ice cream.
We then moved on to the contribution from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He is not in his place, but I would like to respond briefly to the points he made. He paraded his working-class origins, although he said that having served as long as he has in this House he probably cannot claim that any more. He talked about cycling, of which I am also a great supporter. He thought that we needed a cycling champion, but I think we have at least a couple in Chris Hoy and Sir Bradley Wiggins. He thinks that we perhaps need other cycling champions. He talked about Thames crossings and the need to provide additional access, which would be welcomed. One difficulty with additional access is whether it creates more traffic, but I am sure he is on top of that issue. He highlighted the importance of having a clean and fair general election in Tower Hamlets, on which I am sure that we all agree. Some of what happened there, including the logistics, in terms of the length of time taken to complete the election, was absolutely astounding.
The hon. Gentleman talked about leasehold reform, and I suspect that all of us will have encountered leaseholders who are up against some real challenges. He also talked about the need to increase house building. Again, I think there is a cross-party consensus on that. He raised the issue of the telephone company Zamir. I will certainly make sure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the problems that company is having in its dealings with Bangladesh. He referred to Gaza, as did a number of other Members. I agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said on this issue. First, we must condemn absolutely what Hamas is doing. Hamas needs to stop launching rockets at Israel. At the same time, Israel must stop the military strikes it is conducting on densely populated areas, because it is inevitable that they will lead to an unacceptable level of civilian casualties.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who is in his place, for his work in representing his constituents on housing and development. He highlighted the scale of the proposed developments in his constituency, and the contrasting views and demands in different parts of the country. Opposition Members have talked about the need to expand housing provision. He rightly wants to defend the interests of his constituents, who are concerned about the very high level of development they face. He also said it was important to consider the issue of VAT on housing renovation. That is an idea which, although not Government policy, I have some sympathy with as a means of bringing back into use houses that are in need of renovation.
We then listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who is no longer in his place, on the issue of Grangemouth. We have all followed that story, and I think we can all welcome the outcome, which has secured the jobs of many thousands of workers. He also highlighted his support for fracking and methane extraction, which given that our nation needs energy diversity, are potentially important sources of energy. He also referred to the extractive industries transparency initiative, which he has referred to in previous pre-recess Adjournment debates, and highlighted something that I was not aware of and which other Members might not have known either: in some places in Nigeria, such as Rivers state, it is having a positive effect. As we all know, the presence of oil can often be a poison, rather than something that contributes positively to the development of a country, but at least in Rivers state it is making a contribution. He then tried to tempt me to get involved in Nigerian politics. For me, coalition politics is sufficient, without my getting involved in Nigerian politics.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) mentioned his support for complementary medicine. My friend Evan Harris—I wish he was still here—who has strong views on the subject, could have had a lively debate with him. The hon. Gentleman described the progress of a policy from being opposed to being fully adopted—from “mad and dangerous” to “can’t find anyone against it”—but then he talked about wearing four hats; I was worried he was still at the mad stage, as opposed to everyone agreeing with him. He also referred to astrology—it is probably best not to say any more about that, although he does not need to be an astrologer to know he will probably get some e-mails expressing frank views on astrology and its merits or otherwise. I agreed with his final point, however, about the need to make everyone in this country happier. I think we are trying to do that. I hope I am making all Members who contributed happy by responding to at least some of their points.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who unfortunately could not stay—she let me know beforehand—talked about the importance of integrating health and social care and rightly sang the praises of carers, as we all often do in this place. It gives me the opportunity to sing the praises of the Sutton carers centre in my borough, which does a good job of supporting carers. I hope that this Government, and previous Governments, have recognised the importance of carers and are putting measures in place to support them. The carer’s assessment is part of that, the existence of which she has successfully highlighted to try and ensure that more people access it. She asked why the NHS was not being made responsible for identifying carers. I think local authorities, too, have a clear public health role and responsibility to do the same.
The hon. Lady also talked about the spare room subsidy. It is clear what the Liberal Democrats said on that issue. We support the principle of what the Government have done, but the Department for Work and Pensions has produced a report highlighting certain problems with the present scheme, and of course we will work within the coalition to get our Conservative partners to accept that action needs to be taken as a result of that report. If that is not possible, we will return to the issue in our manifesto at the general election.
The hon. Lady also mentioned air pollution. The Government are committed to working towards full compliance with current EU air quality standards. In recent decades, there have been considerable improvements in air quality, but we are not complacent. As a London MP, I am aware that air quality is a serious issue that we need to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) referred to the 40th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, whose importance I think we all recognise. Since its introduction, the number of employees killed at work has fallen by 85%. That is a substantial drop, although there is clearly more to be done. My hon. Friend pointed out that there had not been a single loss of life during the building of the Olympic stadium, which I think is a real tribute to the safety standards that were adopted. As he said, it is a great pity that other countries—including Qatar and, indeed, Brazil—have not managed to achieve the same result.
Like my hon. Friend, I should be worried if anything were happening that would reduce the health and safety of workers, but certainly nothing that the Government are doing would have that effect. He referred to appendix 4. I am afraid that I do not know the details of appendix 4, but I will ensure that he receives a reply, because I know that the issue is of interest not only to him, but to other Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is not in the Chamber—talked about sporting bodies and the importance of looking seriously at the health impact of playing football. A range of football-related issues arise in the House regularly. During business questions, we have frequently encouraged Members to apply to the Backbench Business Committee, because it is clear that there are enough sport-related concerns to justify a wider debate on the issue.
I certainly agree with one of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I was shocked to see the German and Argentine players stumbling around on the sidelines and then going back on to the pitch. I cannot understand why they were allowed to do that. My son plays football, and I know what happens at junior level. All the advice is that someone who is thought to have concussion should be taken off the pitch, and medical help should be sought. That person should not be sent back on to the pitch.
On Russia, which was raised by a number of Members, the hon. Gentleman underlined the importance of standing together and trying to persuade France and Germany to work on the issue. I hope that that will be possible, notwithstanding the business interests that those two countries have in relation to Russia.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is present, mentioned an e-petition, and drew attention to the success of e-petitions generally and what they could lead to in terms of parliamentary debates. I am very pleased about the debate that took place as a result of that e-petition. He then referred to the issue of caste, which is clearly controversial. Some believe that it is an issue even in the United Kingdom, in the context of people’s ability to obtain jobs in, for instance, the national health service. That has been raised with me in the past. I think we shall have to agree that there may be differing views on caste.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Gaza, about a number of free schools in his constituency—it is clear that a great deal is happening to education there, and that he is very proud of it—and about the fact that managing the steps from the platform to street level at Stanmore station requires one to be an Olympic athlete. I shall ensure that the Mayor is aware of that, as it is a Transport for London issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Anmer Lodge and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, as he had done during our Easter Adjournment debates. He is clearly as determined to ensure that his local hospital is rebuilt as I am to ensure that St Helier hospital is rebuilt, and I have no doubt that both of us will continue to campaign on those issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Barnet football club, Tesco, the NatWest closure, and the “hated no right turn”, of which none of the rest of us were aware, apart from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—who, I understand, is training for the London triathlon. My tip is that if he has not done his swimming training yet, he will have a real struggle. It is not really possible to engage in the other two events without the swimming; I know that. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue to do with football. That again suggests there is potential for the Backbench Business Committee to deliver a comprehensive debate on football matters, if Members approach it. He asked if I could secure for him a letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Harrow council funding issue, and I will endeavour to do that and to flag that up to them. He also raised concerns about pensions and reforms to the pensions system. I hope he agrees that some of the changes the Government made are positive, but he highlighted some specific issues about pension funds and the need for greater accountability and accessibility, and I hope some of them will follow in the footsteps of the Legal & General, which he highlighted as having taken positive action in this respect and which has, perhaps, set an example for others.
We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place. I commend him on his campaigning on Cossham hospital, and, indeed, his mother on the work she used to do—or may still do—as a nurse. I also have some advice for him in relation to antenatal classes, particularly if he is attending the birth: the second one is easier, but he may find that he faints in the first one. I just give him that word of warning. He made a very strong case for the maintenance of services at his hospital and I hope his campaign is successful.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about the need for best practice guidance in relation to consultations, and she asked whether I will introduce that. I can confirm to her that it has already been introduced, so I have already delivered that, but it was in November last year. There are best practice guidelines for consultations, therefore, although I must confess I am not sure whether there is the level of detail that would confirm whether a non-response should or should not be counted, so she may want to look at that and see whether it is the case.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns about her GP surgery and the legislation we have just passed, and I think she suggested that the Government want to know absolutely everything about their citizens. That is certainly not what the data retention proposals are about. She highlighted that in her view the reshuffle the Government —or the Conservatives—have just undertaken is actually about creating more opportunities for Mr Speaker to impersonate leading Ministers. He has not heard that, but he may be practising once he has read Hansard later.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) highlighted his volunteering work, as he has done in the past, and I commend him on that—he is not in the Chamber, but I commend him none the less. He also highlighted planning issues, which is one of those difficult areas for Members of Parliament where on the one hand we need to represent constituents who might have children still living at home who cannot afford to move out, while on the other hand we have constituents who do not want to see developments in their backyard. He highlighted the importance of developing brownfield sites, too, which the Government clearly support, and bringing flats above shops into use.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) rightly highlighted the importance of speaking out for adults with autism who are not in a position to do that themselves and concerns he had that they may drop below the radar—I think that was the phrase he used—and that, although the banding proposals may ensure there is no longer a postcode lottery in the provision of care, he believes it may in fact mean some people will drop out of receiving the support they need.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is in his place, referred to Mr Rockhill, who got a formal caution for displaying an A-board. Like him, I would have hoped the local authority could have demonstrated a degree of common sense in its approach. He also referred to a constituent who should not be spreading his net in the bay, and again I think a modicum of common sense might have resolved that, but he might also like to know of a case involving a county council that asked a local borough council to take down the knitted bicycle bunting erected for the Tour de France because of the damage it might have caused to the heritage lampposts. That is another example of people perhaps being a little over-zealous in their application of the rules and regulations.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the need to build more housing. As I said, there is a cross-party consensus on that; there may not be a similar consensus on where the houses should be built, though the need for them is clearly demonstrated. I believe she said her local authority is building council homes, and I am pleased to say that my local Sutton council is doing the same thing and has set up its own company for that purpose. She highlighted the need to encourage responsible private landlords to offer longer tenancies. We have all had constituents in our surgeries who dealt with someone who may potentially be a good private landlord but who had provided them with only a year’s tenancy, and I think we would all want to see that addressed.
The hon. Lady referred to her concerns about the withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee and how it may lead to a transfer of funding from poor areas to richer areas. I do not know whether she is right about the impact in my constituency, but she asked whether I could secure a response from the Department of Health and I will do that for her. She also referred to broadband and I will pick that matter up shortly. She rightly reminded everyone that it is 100 days since the schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram and almost no action seems to have been taken—that is very depressing. Like others, I experience a degree of bafflement about the lack of any concrete action in that respect.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who is in his place, talked about the need for a new junction on the M4. I know that has been considered, but I am afraid it is not in the current programme. He rightly highlighted the very good work done by the Great Western Air Ambulance and the support it provides to 2 million people, and his desire to see it funded from the LIBOR fund. He also talked about residents user groups, and his constituent Bob Woodward OBE and the work he has done in raising huge amounts of money for CLIC.
I will ensure that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) also receives the response that will go to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the minimum practice income guarantee. He talked about the work he is doing with Muslim communities, and I agree that we need to ensure they do not feel under attack because of the conflagration of different things that they might feel is targeted at them. We should all be very careful about the language we use in that respect.
As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a very thoughtful and hard-hitting statement. I guess the issue is: what can we do in concrete terms about Russia? Are some of the options that were put forward viable or would they inflame the situation further? That is the challenge to which the Government have to respond. Clearly, there is the possibility of a recall if that is necessary—if things develop—but we did have the Prime Minister’s statement on the issue.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is also in her place, had concerns about the NHS. I agree that the NHS faces challenges, but there are a range of measures, be it on hospital-acquired infections, mixed-sex wards, or the record lows for the 18, 26 and 52-week treatment targets, where things are more positive. I am of course very sorry to hear about the poor care her constituent received, although from what she was describing I think it was not a resources issue; it was more of a communication issue, potentially within the hospital and upon release of the patient.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who was not able to stay, referred to the A303. All Members who have been on holiday in that area probably want to see action taken, and we await the autumn statement later this year, which we hope will be positive on that. He also raised the issue of broadband. We have invested heavily in broadband—£790 million—but I agree that, in certain parts of the country, it has not yet delivered the goods that people want to see.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the Orange Order, and its motto “Toleration for everyone”. Clearly, that is particularly essential in a Northern Ireland context, and is something that we all want to support. We support too the charity work that it is undertaking.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—
Tom Brake
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government—or the international community—are failing in relation to Russia. I hope that it is possible to bring together the different players to ensure that action is taken, but we will have to wait and see what happens.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues. I will, if I may, highlight world hepatitis day to which he wanted to draw attention. He also talked about hepatitis C, and the need for greater diagnosis and publicity. He is also a doughty campaigner on behalf of the fire service, and he raised a number of issues in that regard, as he does on a regular basis in pre-recess Adjournment debates and at other opportunities. He referred again to Hillingdon council. He is clearly an assiduous campaigner and will not let the council off the hook if he thinks that it is up to no good.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, talked about the important investment in schools and businesses in his constituency. Quite rightly, he highlighted the fact that, unfortunately, Rolls-Royce is having to retrench in his constituency, but I am sure that he will work with other community representatives to campaign on behalf of the aerospace industry to ensure that Pendle recovers from the loss. I commend him on the first and, I think, only use of the “long-term economic plan” phrase, which gives me an opportunity to say that the Government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society.
Finally, I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to long-serving members of staff—John Pullinger, Christine Gillie, James Robertson, Janet Rissen, Judith Welham, Amanda Waller, Chris Weeds and Clare Cowan—for all their efforts in the House in recent years.
Thomas Docherty
It was remiss of me not to mention this before. I mentioned Sir Barnett Cocks, who was the Clerk when Sir Robert first arrived. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of this, but after Sir Barnett retired he published a book about Parliament. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the Clerk, in his newly acquired time, was able to bring out a publication on how Parliament works, and after that, perhaps one on cricket as well?
Tom Brake
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sir Robert may have heard his entreaty to produce such things, but I will also use this as an opportunity to thank Sir Robert on behalf of all Members. Members should consider the range of things in which Sir Robert has been involved. Let me name just a few. He was involved in implementing the Modernisation Committee’s reform of the legislative process; writing the “Shifting the Balance” report of the Liaison Committee, which was a major step in Select Committee innovation before the Wright Committee; proposing the idea that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee; and writing the so-called 75-point plan in the options for Commons reform, which are gradually being worked through. On the more administrative side, he began to grapple with some of the biggest challenges that we face, such as the need to invest substantially in ensuring that this building is fit for purpose for members of staff, Members and peers in decades to come. Sir Robert will be sorely missed by all Members of the House, and I have personally enjoyed his friendly, informative and experienced advice in the years that I have been here.
With that, I will finish by thanking all the staff—the police, the Clerks, the Chief Clerk, Sir Robert, staff in the Tea Room and everyone who supports us to enable us to do the job that we do. Without them it would not be possible, and we would not get the enjoyment out of it that we do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Respect Policy
Tom Brake Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I am grateful for the contributions of all colleagues and for the support that they have expressed. I will speak briefly in support of the motion.
I thank the Chair of the Committee on Standards and the members of the Committee for their detailed and thoughtful report. During the debate, the Chair set out fully the background to the report, and the consideration and reasoning of the Committee in coming to its conclusions and recommendations.
The report sets out the relationship between the House, in particular the House of Commons Commission, and the thousands of people who come to work on the estate every day. The House is unusual in that many of the people who work on the estate are not employed by the House. That applies most obviously to Members of the House and Members’ staff. As the statutory employer, the House of Commons Commission has a duty of care to those it employs, which includes protecting them from bullying and harassment, including by third parties.
We heard from the spokesman for the Commission how seriously the House authorities, including the House of Commons Commission as the statutory employer, take their duty of care towards staff. It is important to reiterate, as did the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), that having a policy does not necessarily indicate that widespread problems exists. In such matters, prevention and planning are better than waiting for difficult situations to arise.
I know that we can agree that all workers on the estate deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and the shadow Leader of the House in expressing my congratulations and those of the Office of the Leader of the House to the staff on the outstanding work that they do for us all in this place.
The respect policy is one of the ways in which the House aims to be an exemplary employer. It might be appropriate at this point to recognise the other good work that has been achieved by the House recently, such as its accreditation as a London living wage employer, the offer of minimum guaranteed hour contracts to all previously casually employed staff and the work to secure a long-term pay deal that paves the way for the modernisation of working practices. I am pleased that, as the shadow Leader of the House said, the unions are supportive of the policy we are debating.
I am grateful for the reassurances that have been offered to Members, particularly by the Chair of the Standards Committee. It is right that the bar for the acceptance of complaints for investigation by the commissioner is high, and that there is a higher requirement for confidentiality under the procedure for inquiries under the respect policy than for the other work of the commissioner. The House should also be reassured by the commitment to ensure that training is provided to ensure that managers are equipped to do their jobs, as was set out by the Chair of the Standards Committee. I note from the report that such training has already been provided to large numbers of staff. As the report states, the policy
“needs to be fair, and needs to be seen to be fair.”
Let me remind Members why the House needs the respect policy that has been developed. It is not right that members of staff do not have an independent process of appeal in respect of unresolved complaints relating to Members or their staff. Nor is it right that staff of the House, however senior, should adjudicate on the conduct of Members. The consideration by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, followed by investigation and decision by the Committee on Standards, albeit only after an extensive prior process and where the conduct alleged is serious or prolonged, provides the authoritative and proportionate approach that will protect the interests of all parties.
This has been a helpful debate. I hope that the House will approve the motion so that the policy can come into effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Deregulation Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 25—Civil penalties for parking contraventions: enforcement.
Amendment 61, page 7, line 22, leave out clause 10, clause 11 and clause 12.
Government amendment 13.
Amendment 1, page 26, line 4, clause 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “in paragraph (a) leave out from “if new and important evidence” to “discovered” and insert
“where secondary investigations have enabled more new, significant, or important evidence to become available, having particular regard to—
(i) enhancing and preserving the rights of those affected by a maritime accident to learn from the proceedings of such reinvestigations and conclusions drawn from them; and
(ii) future safety issues and measures.”.”
Government amendments 36 to 49, 51, 24 and 26.
Tom Brake
This group of amendments covers accident investigation, parking contravention, driving, and private hire vehicle licensing.
New clause 4 and amendment 24 deal with rail accidents and, specifically, tram investigations in Scotland. They will remove a prohibition in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that prevents the Rail Accident Investigation Branch from investigating tram accidents in Scotland. The prohibition was originally included at the explicit request of the Scottish Executive because operation and safety matters on tramways are a devolved matter. Until now, this has not been an issue as there were no tramways in Scotland, and in practice the power would never have been exercised. However, now that the Edinburgh tramway has entered public service, the prohibition is no longer appropriate. This is a devolved matter, so the consent of the Scottish Parliament is needed. Scottish Ministers will support the legislative consent motion required to remove the prohibition.
The RAIB is already a UK-wide organisation. Its inspectors investigate accidents and incidents on all mainline services, including in Scotland, and currently undertake investigations of tramway accidents in England and Wales. RAIB inspectors already have the required investigative expertise and the necessary powers to conduct a thorough investigation and make recommendations to ensure that lessons are learned. Should there be an accident or incident on the Edinburgh tramway, it is therefore appropriate that RAIB inspectors should be able to undertake an investigation.
If the prohibition on undertaking investigations of tramway accidents or incidents in Scotland were not removed, RAIB inspectors would have no statutory power to investigate, so the safety implications of any accident or incident might not be fully exposed, and there might be repeat incidents if the root causes are not addressed. Although the new clause is only small, the implications for the continued safety of our rail network of perpetuating the prohibition are significant.
The RAIB has already shown its considerable value in contributing to our having one of the safest rail networks in the world. I of course hope that it will never be necessary for RAIB inspectors to be deployed, but we must not be complacent. This is an opportunity to remove a small legislative anomaly, enabling RAIB inspectors to apply their considerable experience and expertise consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What has the accident experience of tramways in England been over the past year, and will the power include the ability to investigate pedestrians and drivers of third vehicles or bicycles that get caught by trams?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I do not have figures to hand on accidents relating to trams in England and Wales, but I will write to my right hon. Friend on that subject. I assume that any investigation of an accident would assess its causes—for instance, if it involved a vehicle driving on to the tramlines—and would make recommendations about how to deal with such issues.
Government new clause 25 relates to changes in the use of CCTV for issuing parking tickets by post. The Government are concerned that the use of CCTV for on-street parking is no longer proportionate, and that local councils over-employ it to deal with contraventions when it would be more appropriate and fair for such contraventions to be handled by a civil enforcement officer. We have therefore committed ourselves to ban the use of CCTV for on-street parking enforcement. That was announced in September and re-stated in December 2013 as part of a package of measures designed to support high streets.
Under existing measures, when a CCTV camera is used by a civil enforcement officer to identify a parking offence, a penalty charge notice can be issued to the offender by post. In practice, that means that drivers may receive a parking ticket through the post several weeks after an incident, which makes it difficult to challenge the alleged contravention.
The Government are concerned that a proliferation of CCTV cameras for offences such as parking may undermine public acceptance of their wider beneficial use. To introduce the change, we need to amend legislation to prevent local authorities from relying so heavily on CCTV for parking enforcement.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the new clause relates to parking, but will he confirm that CCTV cameras can still be used for issuing fines via the post for other offences, such as parking on zig-zag lines in front of schools?
Tom Brake
I will come on to that point in a few moments.
New clause 25 will amend part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to prevent the automatic issuing by post of fines for parking offences, and instead require that notification of penalty charges is given by a notice attached to the vehicle.
The new clause includes a wider power to cater for an outright ban on CCTV if that is considered necessary in future. However, the Government intend to protect the use of CCTV cameras where there is a strong safety argument for doing so. Their use will therefore be banned in all but the following limited circumstances: when stopped in restricted areas outside a school; when stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway; when parked where prohibited in a bus lane; or when stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about his statement at the weekend that local authorities are not able to make a profit from CCTV cameras, and what does he think about that?
Tom Brake
I have not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government since his announcement at the weekend. It is very clear that local authorities cannot issue parking fines to raise funds for other purposes, but that they can use the money from parking fines to invest in transport and some environmental measures. The Government are concerned that the family of local authorities as a whole has a surplus of about £630 million in funds raised through parking tickets. We believe that we have taken a sensible and proportionate approach by ensuring the power has the ability to exempt key parts of the road network so that we reach the right balance of fair enforcement in the right places.
I now move on to amendment 61 on taxis and private hire vehicles.
James Duddridge
Before the Minister moves on, will he confirm when the power will come into effect, and what will happen to councils that perhaps have a longer-term contract with a provider that falls outside the period?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good point, which I think it would be more appropriate to respond to in writing. Clearly, there may well be contractual issues. If local authorities have entered into contracts for, say, a five-year period, there may be implications, so rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will write to him on that point.
Amendment 61 would remove from the Bill the three clauses that relate to taxis and private hire vehicles. That is not a course of action that the Government intend to adopt. On the contrary, we consider that the taxi and private hire vehicle clauses will have significant benefits, both in terms of cost savings for the trade and convenience for passengers, and we are determined to see those benefits realised.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Minister explain why he has not listened to what the travelling public want? There is huge concern about these clauses. He has not consulted the Local Government Association, nor has he listened to the public or the evidence, and as a result, he is going to put public safety at risk.
Tom Brake
I cannot agree with that at all. We are not putting public safety at risk, and I think the people who have concerns about safety do at least have London to consider, where, of course, all the measures apply, and I am not aware of significant issues being raised in relation to safety in London.
Clause 10 concerns the circumstances in which a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is required. Its purpose is to allow people who do not hold a private hire vehicle driver’s licence outside London and Plymouth to drive a licensed private hire vehicle when the vehicle is off duty. At a stroke, that will lift the burden that many families currently face of having to run a second car so that other family members can drive for domestic purposes. I have heard arguments to the effect that this will be unsafe and that the Government are being reckless in taking forward the policy, but I do not agree with that.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
There was a case in the local Slough magistrates court on these issues very recently, and those who were charged were found guilty and fined extensively. The comments from the magistracy are interesting. The court said that they regarded this as a very serious set of offences, putting the public at risk and depriving legitimate drivers of income. They were particularly concerned that the trigger incident involved a lone female being collected late at night from Wexham Park hospital. Is that not evidence that these sorts of changes are required?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On that point, does the Minister acknowledge the concerns of police and crime commissioners and organisations such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about rogue or unlicensed taxis? This deregulation is likely to compound that problem.
Tom Brake
I certainly agree with those organisations that we need to be concerned about rogue, unlicensed taxis, but I do not think that anything the Government are putting forward today will increase the likelihood of there being rogue, unlicensed taxi operators. For instance, a private hire operator passing on a job to another will be passing the job on to an operator who is, of course, licensed.
Tom Brake
I will make some progress.
Safeguards will be in place, the main one being that the law will continue to prohibit people who do not hold a PHV driver’s licence from acting as a PHV driver. It was with safety in mind that we decided to alter the position in London by introducing the reverse burden of proof: where a driver without a PHV licence is caught driving a licensed PHV with a passenger on board, the Bill places the onus on the driver to show that the vehicle was not being used as a hire vehicle at the time. We believe that that approach will make the job of enforcement more straightforward for local authorities.
Clause 11 will standardise the duration of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers’ licences at three years, and private hire operator licences at five years. Shorter licence durations will be permitted, but only according to the circumstances of a given case and not on a blanket basis. That will apply in England and Wales, but not in London or Plymouth. I have heard arguments about the adverse safety implications of clause 11, and about licensing authorities losing their ability to monitor drivers sufficiently. The three-year licence duration applies to more than 50,000 taxi and PHV drivers in London, and outside London just under half of licensing authorities set that duration for their drivers, so that measure is already common. We recognise that local authorities take their taxi licensing responsibilities seriously, which is commendable.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the National Taxi Association, and the National Private Hire Association are totally opposed to these clauses. Why is the Minister not listening to those who have to enforce the regulations or who are part of the delivery of our taxi services?
Tom Brake
The Government have listened to and taken on board concerns expressed by a range of organisations, and have also heard support for the measures we are proposing. We think it important not to place a burden on private hire vehicle drivers that requires them to have a second vehicle in their family to enable them to get around. Safety is vital when licensing taxi and PHV drivers; that is why local authorities are allowed to take into account the criminal records of driver’s licence applicants. Best practice guidance advises licensing authorities to undertake formal criminal record checks every three years, and that facility will still be available. Moreover, the new Disclosure and Barring Service allows taxi and PHV drivers to sign up to an updating service that will allow licensing authorities to make inquiries about the drivers they licence, should they feel the need to do so.
Clause 12 allows private hire vehicle operators to subcontract bookings to operators licensed in a different district. It will apply in England and Wales, outside London and Plymouth. Once again, the clause has been opposed on safety grounds, with arguments that enforcement will be difficult. I stress that that measure already applies in London—I am not aware of any enforcement issues—and the principle of subcontracting, albeit to an operator in the same district, is already enshrined in provincial legislation. I cannot see how allowing PHV operators to subcontract journeys across borders will generate safety issues. Operators will be allowed to subcontract bookings only to other operators who are properly licensed, and those operators will have to fulfil their bookings using properly licensed drivers and vehicles.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister says that he is not aware of any enforcement issues, but may I remind him that the real public safety concern is the number of bogus, unlicensed taxis that operate—particularly in London—and pose a threat to the welfare of women travelling home late in the evening? Last year there were 250 assaults and 56 rapes. Measures that will make that situation worse by making the system more difficult to enforce—that is what the Government propose—should surely concern the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House.
Tom Brake
Again, I agree that the Government, local authorities, the police and campaigning organisations should do everything they can to ensure that women and other users of private hire vehicles use only licensed vehicles, and that there is a strong clampdown on those who are operating illegally. Again, I do not think that anything the Government are proposing in these clauses will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying they will.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a local authority cannot take enforcement action against taxis that are licensed in another area, and that relaxing this policy will only add to that problem?
Tom Brake
As I have said, if, for instance, an operator cannot do a job in an outside area and passes on the responsibility to another licensed operator, that operator will be licensed, and there will be enforcement associated with that licence. Enforcement authorities will be able to check the operator’s records for any given booking to ensure that it has been undertaken lawfully.
To sum up, these are tried and tested measures. We believe there are adequate safeguards in place. We acknowledge, of course, that the Law Commission review is a significant landmark to those who have a keen or vested interest in the evolution of taxi licensing and regulation, but the key point is that that review will not deliver tangible change in the next year, whereas these measures will. They in no way undermine or nullify the Law Commission’s review; they are simply the first steps on a long deregulatory journey, which will continue when the Government find an opportunity to take forward the Bill that will arise from that review. The Government are firmly of the view that clauses 10 to 12 should remain part of the Bill, and that amendment 61 should be resisted.
Graham Jones
The Minister says these measures will be helpful, but Hyndburn borough council currently cannot take enforcement action against taxis from another authority, such as Rossendale, and his proposals will only aggravate the situation. Will he confirm that that is the case?
Tom Brake
At the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that any action the Government are taking will put people at risk.
Let me respond to a couple of earlier interventions. It was suggested, for instance, that we have not consulted. We have indeed consulted: we conducted a targeted consultation earlier this year and also tapped into the extensive consultation conducted by the Law Commission during its comprehensive review. Nor is it true that no one wants the measures we are proposing. For instance, the Private Hire Reform Campaign is highly supportive of all these measures, and after extensive consultation, the Law Commission recommended all three of them in its most recent comprehensive review of taxi legislation.
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I will move on now to Government amendments 13 and 51, which deal with the duration of driving licences granted to drivers with relevant or prospective disabilities. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides that drivers with relevant or prospective medical conditions may be issued only with time-limited driving licences with a maximum duration of three years. That means that drivers with relevant medical conditions need to reapply for their licence at least once every three years. In many cases, where a medical condition is well controlled or progressing only slowly, a three-yearly review is unnecessary. Our amendments will enable the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to issue licences with a duration of up to 10 years.
Every licence application will still be considered on a case-by-case basis, and licences will still be issued for shorter periods where that is appropriate. Only drivers with conditions that are considered low-risk and unlikely to progress quickly will get a licence of longer duration, so road safety will not be compromised. A driver will still have a legal duty to tell the DVLA of any condition that he or she has developed or that has deteriorated, and it is an offence to fail to do so. Doctors and other third parties, such as the police, can also notify the DVLA when patients or drivers who have a notifiable medical condition, or do not tell the DVLA about it, come to their attention.
When the DVLA consulted on this proposal, 81% of respondents said they supported it. Those expressing support included the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the RAC Foundation, the Epilepsy Society, Diabetes UK, the Royal College of Physicians and the Freight Transport Association. Our amendments will ease the burden on motorists who currently need to make unnecessary applications every three years. They will also ease the burden on GPs, who have to complete the administrative work, and the DVLA, where applications are processed.
Let me turn to marine investigations and the Opposition’s amendment 1. Hon. Members have referred to the campaign—which was supported by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—by the relatives of those lost in the sinking of the MV Derbyshire. I recognise that the amendment is intended to ensure that a future campaign of a similar type that uncovered new evidence would lead to the reopening of the formal investigation into the relevant accident. However, hard cases make bad law.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
A more general point about marine accidents is relevant here. All of us who represent marine communities know just how hard it is for bereaved families to come to terms with their loss in the event of marine accidents, and that is made all the harder when they do not know what happened, and when unanswered questions remain. Anything that makes it harder, more costly and more bureaucratic for the families to get the answers they need must be a retrograde step. I ask the Minister to look more carefully at not just this single instance, but at the framework, and to think again about how he takes forward the regulations on this issue. It is a huge comfort to bereaved families to find out what actually happened to their loved ones.
Tom Brake
Of course it is. I have just stated the parameters that will be used to establish whether it is appropriate to reopen an investigation. We would, of course, want to ensure that the families had the answers that they wanted and deserved, so that they could get closure. We are arguing only about whether there should be a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to reopen formal inquiries, irrespective of the value of any new evidence that comes forward, and however small it is.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later and contribute to the debate. The Minister may be convinced, but it is the seafarers and their families who need convincing, and they are not convinced. Will he clarify the process from here onwards? Will there be detailed regulation and consultation? If the legislation is agreed to today, how do we go forward towards implementation?
Tom Brake
I shall respond to that shortly, but let me restate that I do not believe that anything we are proposing would have got in the way of the MV Derbyshire inquiry. All the evidence surrounding that shows that under these proposals the Secretary of State would still have reopened the investigation. All we are talking about is whether there should be an automatic trigger, irrespective of the nature of the evidence that comes forward. That is the only point that is in dispute, and I am absolutely certain that if the current Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State felt that the evidence brought forward could, in any shape or form, lead to further safety improvements being identified, they would want to proceed with a formal inquiry. I think most Members would agree that if, 100 years from now, a formal investigation was automatically triggered under this legislation by something that happened today, that would not be likely to make a significant contribution to improving safety.
Amendments 36 to 49 make minor technical improvements to the drafting of schedule 2. Amendments 36, 37 and 39 make drafting changes to render the language more consistent. Amendments 40 and 43 relate to new section 128ZZA, which allows the registrar to cancel a requirement to undergo an emergency control assessment when it is appropriate to do so. The policy intention was to cover all ECAs, but cross-references were missed, so the Bill does not cover the ECAs that are required in relation to licences for trainee instructors. Amendments 40 and 43 simply extend the new section to cover ECAs in connection with licences.
Amendment 41 amends new section 133B(2A), which concerns the ability to retake failed ECAs. It inserts references to assessments required in relation to licences for trainee instructors, which will ensure that the ability to retake a failed assessment applies to all assessments, regardless of the stage at which they were originally ordered. New section 133B(5A) states that a person applying to undergo a further ECA cannot do so until after a further six months, or any other such period prescribed by regulations. Amendments 38 and 42 simply allow a person to retake an ECA before the end of the six-month period in cases in which that is appropriate. Amendments 44 to 49 make consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to reflect amendments made to the Act by schedule 2 to the Bill.
Let me now conclude my remarks—
John McDonnell
Will the Minister answer the question that I asked earlier, about the process involving marine investigations?
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly on Government new clause 25 and more specifically to our amendments 61 and 1, which relate to taxis and maritime issues respectively.
First, I shall comment on what the Minister said about the CCTV measure. The short notice of the introduction of the amendment—it appeared only at the end of last week—suggests that it was a political hot potato, passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government. There have long been rumours that the DCLG intended to scrap the use of CCTV even in sensitive areas, in contrast to the wishes of DFT Ministers. Over the weekend, press coverage of the issue was almost entirely dominated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on whether DFT Ministers decided to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has called a “pickled policy”, or whether this is simply an example of what the Government’s frequent use of the Alice in Wonderland principle of sentence first and trial afterwards.
It concerns us greatly that the measure was introduced so late in the day. It is at odds with the consultative approach adopted by the Department for Transport. A range of organisations, including Living Streets, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Freight Transport Association, Disabled Motorists UK, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Guide Dogs for the Blind, have made their concerns known, yet the Government published the new measure before seeing those responses.
There are of course legitimate concerns that councils have been using cameras as a routine means of parking enforcement; that is wrong. There have also been problems where stickers, such as resident permits and blue badges, have not been visible and drivers have wrongly been issued with tickets; that is an occurrence that we should make as infrequent as possible. It is understandable that drivers become frustrated when the first they hear of an infringement is a letter through the post, without the opportunity to discuss the circumstances with an enforcement officer. So we agree with the Select Committee on Transport that there should be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to institute penalty charges, but that could be done through statutory and operational guidance, which is exactly what the groups I just mentioned would have liked.
CCTV remains vital for parking and for traffic and safety enforcement in certain areas where the use of parking officers is not practical: schools, bus stops, bus lanes, junctions and pedestrian crossings all come into that category. We hear from the Government response to their consultation that those areas are to be exempted and that CCTV could still be used in these circumstances, but that is not on the face of the Bill and we would welcome confirmation that this is the case and that plans will be put into practice.
Tom Brake
First, I wish to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who is not in his place. He started by discussing CCTV exemptions, which he wanted included in the Bill. I made it clear in my opening remarks precisely what the exemptions were, but to avoid doubt I will simply repeat them. CCTV cameras can still be used in relation to restricted areas outside a school; red routes or clearways; bus lanes, where parking is prohibited; and cases where a vehicle is stopped at a restricted bus stop or stand. That is very clear.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister has indicated where he intends exemptions to be made, but he has not answered the questions my hon. Friend put to him. Where will those exemptions be listed? Where will they be codified? Under what regulations will they be introduced? When will those regulations be laid?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure we will shortly provide the clarity he seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) raised the issue of CCTV and parking, and asked when we would introduce regulations and commence the provision. Clearly we will do that as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. He also suggested that we could restrict CCTV use through statutory guidance. There is a need to legislate; the difficulty at the moment is that local authorities are not supposed to use CCTV other than in exceptional circumstances, but its use is proliferating. We need to respond to that because CCTV is now being used routinely.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South, like other Opposition Members, made a number of comments about how we are putting passengers at risk and how that risk could be greatly increased, but they did not illustrate that with any examples. He attacked me for using London as an example—I believe he said I was praying it in aid—but London does have rather a big private hire vehicle market and so everything that he says is going transpire as a result of the measures we are introducing would have already happened in London. The evidence shows that it has not.
Grahame M. Morris
May I remind the Minister that there were 54 rapes and more than 200 assaults in London last year? Does he not think that should concern him and the whole House?
Tom Brake
I am going to make a bit more progress. The hon. Member for Blackpool South called on the Government to have a more comprehensive look at this issue, but the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce the three measures which, as he will have heard me say, the Law Commission supports. We are introducing those three measures. He will know, as will other Opposition Members, that Bills, unlike buses, do not come along in threes; Bills come forward relatively infrequently and if there is an opportunity to take small steps in relation to taxis, we should take them.
Mr Marsden
I am listening with care to what the Minister is saying, but so much of the thrust of the criticism that has been made has been about how the Government have put the cart before the House. When were these measures put into this Bill?
Tom Brake
I will address that shortly. The hon. Gentleman attempted a joke at the Government’s expense about whether the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport had spoken about these matters. The consultation was issued jointly in December by both Departments, and the announcements that Members will have seen in the press at the weekend were supported by both Secretaries of State and both Departments. Clearly, Departments are working hand in hand on this issue, as they should be.
The hon. Gentleman has stated that we did not listen to the Law Commission, but it supports the three measures. He, like a number of Members, asked about enforcement, which will be dealt with in the usual way. For example, where journey bookings are subcontracted across licensing boundaries the operator that takes the initial booking will retain liability and licensing authorities can investigate any issues in the usual way, so local authorities retain their licensing duties.
Graham Jones
The Minister rightly says that the licence will be administered by the local authority, but the vehicle that turns up at the door may well not be licensed by the local authority, and neither may the driver. The operator might be, but the driver and the vehicle may well not be licensed by the local authority where the original booking is made.
Tom Brake
I will come to that matter shortly in response to another intervention, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with my answer.
Moving on to the issue of marine safety, the hon. Member for Blackpool South suggested that I had used a bad example when I referred to something that had happened 100 years ago, although I think that he, or someone from his party, went on to do the same. The issue is that, under his suggested amendment, if a wreck were discovered 100 years from now, regardless of whether it represented substantial new information or had any impact on an investigation, there would be an automatic reopening of an inquiry. That is something for which we want to provide flexibility.
Mr Marsden
I hesitate to say that the Minister is misrepresenting the words of our amendment. I invite Members to look at its words. As I said, there will not be an automatic reopening of an inquiry, whether it is in 10, 20 or 100 years’ time.
Tom Brake
I am afraid that my advice says that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment widens the remit rather than closing it down. Perhaps he should go back and look at precisely what he is proposing. It is clear that the Secretary of State will still be required to reopen a formal investigation where there are grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice. It is also worth pointing out that what we are talking about has no impact on the work of the marine accident investigation branch; that is completely separate to this issue.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there would be regulations for marine investigations. The answer is no, there would not be regulations. That is something that would be implemented. We have set out the circumstances in which we would expect the Secretary of State formally to reopen an inquiry. We would of course consider any specific requests that were received from relatives or trade unions that were affected by that decision-making process. The measure would come into force two months after Royal Assent.
John McDonnell
The Minister should recognise that he is now taking the law back to what it was when it was completely ineffective. The Conservative Government had to amend the legislation, and the Derbyshire relatives had to campaign for 20 years to ensure that they got justice.
John McDonnell
The reason why the Conservative Government introduced the legislation was that the decision was at the discretion of the Minister. This measure returns it to the discretion of a Minister—it does not matter which party is in power—in whom the public no longer have confidence.
Tom Brake
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in relation to miscarriages of justice, there is no flexibility. There will be an automatic reopening of the inquiry. I hope that he agrees that there must be some assessment of whether or not new evidence should trigger a formal reopening of an inquiry. Surely the evidence must pertain to the incident. It has to be of a nature that is likely to lead to safety improvements.
John McDonnell
That is precisely why I support the amendment. However, if the amendment is not suitably drafted, the usual process is that Government consult on the detail of regulation. People will be involved in that, and we can hopefully arrive at a consensus. Today the Minister is saying that there will be no regulation that will guide Minister and therefore no consultation. We are back where we were before 1995.
Tom Brake
I am repeating myself rather a lot, but I say again that we are not back where we were. I have made it clear that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire inquiry would have happened.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for his support. I was not quite as surprised as he thought I might be in receiving support from him. He expressed the view that the Government had not gone far enough in relation to deregulation. The Opposition saying that we have gone too far and my right hon. Friend saying that we have not gone far enough probably means that the Government have got it about right.
My right hon. Friend went on to highlight other problems with parking, with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar. I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but, first, I would be ruled out of order, and, secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that one concern of citizens is the use of fines to raise funds? I checked Magna Carta 1297, which for these deregulatory purposes can be found in the volume of statutes from 1235 to 1770, and it is clause 14 that is, in part, being reinstated by this Bill.
Tom Brake
I did not know that Magna Carta touched on the matter of parking, but I am better informed as a result of my hon. Friend’s intervention.
Still on parking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham touched on complicated parking signs and rules. Local authorities should ensure that signs are appropriate for parking restrictions. If they are not, drivers may complain to their council. If they receive a ticket, they have a free appeal to the local council and then a free appeal to the adjudicator if the council decides against them. I am sure that he is aware of that and will have referred many a constituent to the adjudicator in relation to disputes over parking tickets. The Government announced over the weekend that local residents and local firms will be able to demand a review of parking in their areas, including charges and the use of yellow lines.
We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who described a distressing incident involving a young constituent of hers. I am sure that we all wish to convey our sympathy to her constituent for what was clearly a very traumatic incident. I do not know whether she has pursued with her local authority its participation in the disclosure and barring service, which may have been able to identify a problem with that particular driver. The hon. Lady went on to say that what we propose in this Bill will make matters worse. Again, I dispute that. We have had many comments from the Opposition saying that the Government will make matters worse, but they have offered little to substantiate those allegations.
The hon. Lady referred to the risk of the public using an unlicensed taxi. The measures to allow off-duty use of private hire vehicles relates not to taxis but to PHVs or mini cabs. In London no issues have been reported to the Department by Transport for London. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Law Commission recommended this measure. In fact, it may go further as it calls for off-duty use of taxis, too.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Is it correct that a person who runs a licensed taxi company, for example, is responsible for everyone who drives for that company? If so, that person has the responsibility to ensure that his or her drivers act properly and are properly checked.
Graham Jones
The Minister says that there has been no safety issue in London. What assessment has he made outside London of police stop checks of taxi vehicles in local authorities that have less regulation than others? We are all aware that in some local authorities a high proportion of taxis stopped by the police are in breach of roadworthiness rules, and those vehicles must be repaired. What assessment has he made of vehicles’ roadworthiness?
Tom Brake
I personally have not made such an assessment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, has regularly requested that sufficient enforcement action is taken and that suitable checks are made. I am sure that his local authority will want to pursue that actively and that the police and crime commissioner in his area will want to emphasise it as well. We expect those checks to be carried out now, irrespective of anything proposed in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) dwelt on subcontracting, as did other Members, and talked about what would happen if people used the local reliable firm that they knew and liked, but the job was passed on to another operator. At the moment, if someone wants to use their local reliable firm and it cannot fulfil that job, they are simply told to find another operator, so the risks that he tried to highlight in the job being passed on to another operator are already there when the reliable firm says, “Sorry, we can’t do that job for you. Go and look in the phone book to find another operator.” What we propose would allow that local reliable firm, which one would expect to want to set up a business relationship with another reliable, not local firm, to work with it in partnership to fulfil those jobs appropriately. Irrespective of these arrangements, all firms must be licensed. That is the basis on which their reliability is confirmed.
Graham Jones
The Minister says that an individual who is unable to order a private hire vehicle from their favourite firm is in the same position if the company locates a private hire vehicle from another local authority. On many levels, that is wrong. When that individual flicks through the “Yellow Pages”, as the Minister describes it, they can choose to look for a company in their area. This proposal will allow the company to take charge, and that taxi could come from another area with different standards. The choice is therefore removed from the fare-paying customer. Does the Minister accept that the customer is in control when they look through the “Yellow Pages”, but not when the job is passed from one operator to another who locates a taxi from outside the area?
Tom Brake
Yes, when people use “Yellow Pages”, they may well be in control of their choice of private hire firm, but I thought the point that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members were making was that there was a risk in a job being passed on by a local reliable firm to another operator. I would suggest that the risk of simply going to the phone book is much greater than using a local reliable firm whose reputation relies on delivering a good service, whether it does so directly or by subcontracting to another firm in an area where it cannot operate. With our system, security is enhanced, rather than damaged in the way he suggests.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Although he uses London as the example where these changes are already in place, does he acknowledge that the enforcement regime is rather different because of the unique arrangement between the Metropolitan police and Transport for London? That arrangement is not replicated elsewhere in the country.
Tom Brake
If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that is an issue—clearly, several Members have raised it during the debate—it is a prime case for the police and crime commissioner to get involved in, to try to ensure consistency across their patch.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the Government have made no counter-argument in support of the proposals. Again, I simply refer her to the fact that the Law Commission supports our three proposals on taxis.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington called for a comprehensive Bill. Of course we want the Law Commission to deliver a comprehensive Bill, and nothing that we have done in relation to these measures stops it doing so. He referred to marine investigation and MV Derbyshire. I have taken quite a lot of interventions from him on that issue. I simply say again that the Government are clear that if such an incident happened again, under our proposals the case would definitely be reopened.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) wants parking laws enforced properly; well, so do I, and so do the Government. Local authorities will be able to enforce them properly by using traffic wardens, and nothing that we are doing will stop them doing so. I hope he will agree that, as I stated in my opening remarks, the issue is that local authorities have generated a surplus of £635 million by issuing parking tickets.
Kelvin Hopkins
Does the Minister accept that, by reducing CCTV surveillance of parking, he will reduce the number of convictions and make it easier to get away with parking illegally?
Tom Brake
That depends on how local authorities respond. If they use traffic wardens, there is no reason why what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will happen. He suggested that a national register is needed. I do not know whether he has investigated that and can demonstrate that it would increase safety and what the associated price tag might be. Of course, the Bill is about deregulation, not, as he would like, more regulation.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked about our taxi policy opening the door to criminality, and I dispute that anything we are introducing would do so. He made that comment without backing it up with any evidence. He referred at some length to subcontracting, which we have dealt with. He wants taxis of a good standard; so do we, and that is what the licensing regime is for.
I think that I have dealt with all the points made, and I simply conclude my remarks by urging the Opposition not to press their amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Civil penalties for parking contraventions: enforcement
‘(1) Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement of traffic contraventions) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 78 (notification of penalty charge) insert—
“78A Notification of penalty charge: parking contraventions in England
(1) Regulations under section 78 must include provision requiring notification of a penalty charge to be given by a notice affixed to the vehicle where the charge is in respect of a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area in England.
(2) The regulations may, however, provide that the requirement does not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations (which may be framed by reference to the type of contravention, the circumstances in which a contravention occurs or in any other way) and, where the regulations so provide, they may make any such alternative provision for notification as is authorised by section 78.”
(3) After section 87 insert—
“87A Power to prohibit use of devices etc: parking contraventions in England
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to prohibit the use by civil enforcement officers of a device of a description specified in the regulations, or of records produced by such a device, in connection with the enforcement of parking contraventions on a road in a civil enforcement area in England.
(2) The prohibition may be—
(a) general, or
(b) limited to particular uses specified in the regulations.
(3) The regulations may provide that a general or limited prohibition does not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations (which may be framed by reference to the type of contravention, the circumstances in which a contravention occurs or in any other way).
(4) Regulations under this section may amend this Part or any provision made under it.”’—(Tom Brake.)
This new clause deals with the enforcement of parking contraventions in England under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. It provides that, subject to certain exceptions, regulations under section 78 must provide for notification of a penalty charge to be given by a notice affixed to the vehicle (which means that a civil enforcement officer must be present to affix the notice). It also confers a power which would enable regulations to be made to restrict the use of CCTV or other devices in parking enforcement.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Footpaths: provisions to stop up or divert due to privacy, safety or security
‘(1) The Highways Act 1980 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 118 (Stopping up of footpaths, birdleways and restricted byways), in subsection (1) after “on the ground that it is not needed for public use”, insert “or the public need could reasonably be provided by an alternative public right of way or highway nearby”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) When making a determination under subsection (1A) the council and Secretary of State shall have regard to the presumption that footpaths should not pass through farmyards, gardens, commercial premises or other land where privacy, safety or security are an issue.”.
(4) In section 119 (Diversion of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways), subsection (6A) after “a public right of way,”, insert “, and the presumption that paths should not pass through farmyards, commercial areas, gardens or other land where privacy, safety or security is an issue.”’—(Bill Wiggin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Newmark
Yes, yes. I am totally sympathetic with what the hon. Lady says. I am not trying to change historic rights of way. My intention is to create more flexibility in the system to allow paths that go right past people’s front doors and their gardens to be moved slightly. I am not looking to stop people’s access to those ancient rights of way.
In order to solve these problems, the owner of the land in question must seek an order to divert or extinguish the right of way through a modification consent order or an application for public path order. This guidance applies where a public right of way passes through a garden which forms part of the curtilage of a residential dwelling, a working farmyard or forestry yard, or other operational business or working industrial premises. The interests of the landowner must be weighed against the overall impact on the public as a whole—a point that Opposition Members emphasised—and the privacy, security and safety of the landowner are all considerations to which due weight should be given. Furthermore, if the public right of way is extinguished, it should be diverted elsewhere in order to reduce inconvenience to the public.
Now that I have laid out at least some of the rationale for my new clauses, let me touch briefly on each new clause in turn. New clause 17, entitled “Presumed diversion of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the diversion of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security. New clause 18, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 118 of the 1980 Act and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the extinguishment of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security if a diversion is not possible as the right of way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. Finally, new clause 19, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive byways open to all traffic in limited circumstances”, is an amendment to section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 and creates a presumption that byways open to all traffic should be diverted so as not to pass through residential or business premises unless the byway does not impact on the privacy, safety or security of the premises or provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that although it is essential that we respect the ancient rights provided by footpaths and byways that the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about in her intervention, it is important that we also respect the privacy, safety and security of individuals and their property. That is the narrow path that I am trying to navigate. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new clauses 17, 18 and 19 are drafted both to be reasonable to landowners and to respect the rights of individuals to have access to byways, especially if those byways provide access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. In this spirit I look forward to his response to new clauses 17, 18 and 19 as well as to new clause 15, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. I end by thanking my constituent Roger Duffin for raising this important issue and for his guidance in enabling me to draft a constructive solution to a sensitive problem.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) for tabling their new clauses and allowing us to discuss the important topic of rights of way and the impact that these can have.
We recognise that all four amendments seek to address the issue of intrusive public rights of way. The Government have been giving very careful consideration to this, in discussion with the rights of way stakeholder working group. The work done by the group has been invaluable in pulling together the potentially divergent views of landowners and ramblers.
The Government acknowledge that for householders, farmers and others, an intrusive footpath can have a substantial impact on their quality of life or on their ability to run a business. We understand that while this is not a widespread problem, where it occurs it can cause severe difficulties, and in a significant number of cases people have been put through years of considerable inconvenience and stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire mentioned.
It is not clear to me whether my hon. Friend feels that his amendment would help prevent incidents involving dangerous cattle on footpaths, unless it is envisaged that the presumption that paths should not pass through other land where safety is an issue could be used to close or divert rights of way that run through fields where cattle are present. That would clearly be a radical and sweeping measure that could lead to the closure or diversion of innumerable rights of way with questionable justification. The issue of cattle attacks on public rights of way is being addressed separately by the Government, and there is no suggestion from any of the parties involved that primary legislation is required to sort out the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. It is clear, however, that there has to be a change in the way in which both legislation and policy operate if people are to get a satisfactory hearing, and that is what the Government are doing in the Bill.
We very much sympathise with people’s genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from footpaths running through private gardens and farmyards and recognise that we need to find an acceptable solution, but we do not believe that these new clauses are the best way to go about this. Measures are already being developed that will make a significant difference to the way in which requests for diversions and extinguishments of rights of way will be dealt with by local authorities. We are working towards making effective the “right to apply” provisions in the Bill. That will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way; with that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it, so local authorities will not be able simply to rebuff or ignore representations from a landowner, as they can at present. I hope that my hon. Friends will see that as a positive development.
Moreover, the right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. That guidance has been developed in agreement with the rights of way stakeholder working group.
Mr Newmark
The Minister was actively listening and I appreciate his response, but I would ask him to be sensitive to the cost of appeal. Many of these people are not wealthy and it is important that we keep costs to an absolute minimum.
Tom Brake
Costs can be a significant issue, and the Government and local authorities will clearly want to ensure that they are kept to a minimum.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire asked whether the guidance would be statutory. This is a deregulation Bill, the purpose of which is to minimise the statutory burden rather than increase it. We believe that the combined effect of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect, and we should see how the measures work out in practice before seeking to add to the legislative burden.
A draft of the guidance has been deposited in the House Library. We recognise that it needs further refinement and it remains open for comment. The rights of way reforms will also give local authorities more scope to deal with objections themselves, rather than having to submit every opposed order to the Secretary of State as at present. We believe that the provisions will make a significant difference, and until we see how well the “right to apply” provisions work alongside the new guidance, making further legislation would be premature. The new clauses would create new regulation where it may prove to be unnecessary and create more problems than they resolve.
The issue of intrusive public rights of way is emotive. I can appreciate why it arouses strong feelings and why those affected feel so strongly that something needs to be done. While putting the terms of a presumption on the face of the Act might seem like a way of making sure something happens, it carries a high risk that the presumption will not work as intended and, unlike the guidance, it would not be possible readily to make changes in response to unforeseen circumstances or to take account of new developments.
As the draft guidance on diversions and extinguishments has been developed by the stakeholder working group, there is a strong consensus around it, which means that it is far more likely to be complied with. We welcome the fact that a new working group is likely to be set up through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which will look at some of the other complex issues, such as green lanes—another very difficult issue to which to find a consensual solution. We firmly believe that solutions arrived at in that way, based on agreement and mutual interest, will result in less conflict and less need for enforcement in the long run.
The proposed new clauses also do not strike the correct balance between public and private interests, which is critical to the agreement reached on the guidance by the stakeholder working group. Legislative solutions imposed without a consensus tend to result in more disputes and legal challenges and there is no stakeholder consensus around the legislative changes proposed here. The new clauses would be quite a fundamental change to the current legislative status quo, which should not be made in the absence of either public consultation or stakeholder agreement, so I regret that I must urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendments.
Bill Wiggin
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and constructive comments; it is useful to know that the Government are looking at the risks. I also welcome the formation of a new working group. It does not come as a terribly big surprise that the Government are unwilling to accept new clause 15. However, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), I thank the Minister for looking at our concerns seriously and promising to keep a watching brief on how things progress.
I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who answered for the Labour party, that rights of way are of course emotive and vital, but keeping people alive is more important. Until Labour Members recognise that, they are not fit to be in government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10
Private hire vehicles: circumstances in which driver’s licence required
Amendment proposed: 61, page 7, line 22, leave out clause 10, clause 11 and clause 12.—(Mr Marsden.)
All-party Parliamentary Groups
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
On behalf of the Government, I support the motion before us in the name of the Chair of the Committee on Standards. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) has set out very clearly the conclusions of his Committee’s report and the effect of the motion before the House. All-party parliamentary groups have a distinct and important role to play in the work of Parliament. They provide a recognised forum in which Members of both Houses can meet together and with individuals from outside Parliament to share information and exchange ideas on issues of mutual interest. This is a healthy process. Indeed, the free flow of ideas and information between the lawmakers and citizens is an essential part of any properly functioning democracy.
There is a huge range of APPGs, the origins and purposes of which may range from a shared interest in a particular country or activity to a campaign for a good cause or policy objective. There is no problem with that. What is important—I would say essential—is that in respect of all such groups, there is transparency as to their purpose, membership and support, particularly any financial support, as well as accountability for their actions. That is what I hope will be achieved through the changes we are approving today.
I fully support the intention of the new resolution to make it clear that each chair of an APPG will be responsible and accountable for their group’s adherence to the rules governing all-party parliamentary groups. Those rules must be taken seriously and complied with scrupulously. The fact that significant breaches will be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and subsequent consideration by the Standards Committee should provide an effective deterrent.
I am also happy to endorse the proposal to give the Committee on Standards the job of updating the guide to the rules on APPGs and making minor changes to the rules from time to time as the need arises without having to bring such changes before the House for approval.
The House can have confidence in the Committee to entrust it with this function. Indeed such detailed changes are much better done in Committee than on the Floor of the House. The House should be grateful to the Standards Committee for its work on revising the rules and the guide to the rules on APPGs. This will serve to increase the confidence of the public in how Parliament conducts itself and the confidence of Members that their engagement with APPGs is not only valuable in itself but beyond reproach. I commend the motion to the House.
House of Commons Business
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Some interesting and substantive contributions have been made to the debate this afternoon by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, by my hon. Friend the. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), as well as interventions from several Members. I hope to comment on at least some of the more specific points.
I welcome the Opposition’s support for the process that has been outlined for e-petitions and the co-operation of the Procedure Committee and others in taking the matter forward with the Government. However, I regret that the hon. Member for Nottingham North appears reluctant to engage with his colleagues, including those who are members of the Government, on designing a system that meets the interests of both parties and, even more important, those of petitioners.
One of the main problems with having two petition systems, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is the difficulty for petitioners in trying to identify which of the two they should use and, indeed, what happens when they request one thing through one route, which they also need to achieve through the other route. I will not engage with the detail of the amendment—that is for the Procedure Committee to consider in concert with others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feed his ideas into that Committee.
The Government support some aspects of the amendment and, indeed, some things can already be done. For example, the provision that
“any hon. Member should be able to propose an e-petition for debate”
can already happen. That also applies to the provision that,
“the Backbench Business Committee should allocate time on Mondays in Westminster Hall for debates arising from e-petitions”.
There are, therefore, matters on which we agree. However, there are others, particularly the suggestion of setting up a completely separate e-petition site, that the Government do not support. However, as I said, this is a joint exercise and joint system, and further discussion with colleagues is required before trying to identify the detail.
The intention is to enable the House to hold the Government to account in responding to petitions, and to give it greater control over how they are treated and debated here. Given the nature of our debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will not press the amendment. If the House agrees to the motion, the Leader of the House will be in a position to meet the Procedure Committee to begin discussions on the new system. We look forward to proposals emerging later in the year.
On programming, I am grateful for the support for the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I note the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, based on his experience, and the comments about the effect of the new deadline and how the Chair will apply it. The new deadline of three days for amendments on Report will apply from the start of the next Session, and we look forward to the Procedure Committee’s review before the end of the Parliament.
On Standing Order No. 33, if the House agrees to the Standing Order changes, they will be in force for the debate on the Gracious Speech at the start of the next Session. Members will doubtless wish to reflect on how well they work after that debate.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House posed a question on programming, about whether the Government would consider an earlier deadline of an extra day so that the House has a chance to see the Government’s thinking on Government amendments.
Tom Brake
The difficulty with that is that it would effectively create two classes of Members—one required to provide more and another required to provide less notice. That presents problems.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to intervene about the couple of other points that were raised while I was temporarily out of the Chamber. He will be pleased to know that I got inspiration even while not within these Chamber walls. On defamation, the shadow Leader of the House called on the Government to support an amendment to the Deregulation Bill to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The Government have previously made it clear that they support the repeal and will act when a legislative opportunity arises. I am pleased to say that one such opportunity will arise next week.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House made a point about e-petitions and privilege. That is a matter that the Procedure Committee could consider. There may be implications depending on the decisions reached—for example, on whether a petitions Committee considers all petitions, potentially accepting them as evidence. Once the system is designed, clarity on that will be important.
We have had a focused and concise debate on these House issues, and I hope that we are now in a position to move forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Allen, do you want to move your motion formally?
Votes at 16
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Harper
No, I do not accept that. In a moment, I will counter what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said by explaining why I do not think that the voting age is particularly significant to how Members of Parliament conduct themselves, or ought to conduct themselves, with regard to young people. I might touch then on my hon. Friend’s point. I will not labour any more of the arguments, but it is worth saying that the trend is against allowing younger people to make such decisions.
Tom Brake
On the subject of trends, my hon. Friend will know that in some cases relating to electoral matters, the trend is going in the other direction. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 lowered the minimum age for standing for election to the House of Commons and local authorities from 21 to 18, in line with the minimum voting age.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate on an important, interesting and topical issue and for highlighting some of the excellent achievements of the young people she has met in her constituency, with whom she has debated this matter. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed.
The hon. Lady described votes at 16 as a radical change. Personally, I consider it to be an incremental change, not a radical change, but that is a Liberal Democrat view rather than a Government view.
I am afraid that I have been needled into responding to a couple of points that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made. He likes to target the Liberal Democrats. He was, I am afraid, posing as a slow learner who did not understand the practicalities of coalition, although I am sure that he understands them very well: there is an agreement between two parties, they form a Government and deliver a programme, but those two parties remain independent and have differing points of view, as set out earlier. It was made clear in this debate that Opposition Members have a clear view.
The hon. Lady, who opened the debate, the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and the shadow Minister spoke in support of votes at 16. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is no longer in his place, supports votes at 16 or thinks it is a logical conclusion and somewhere we will get to eventually. Other contributions from the Government Benches, whether it was the interventions of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the detailed speech of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)or the lengthy interventions of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is no longer in his place, made it clear that there is no consensus within the Government on the issue. There are, therefore, no plans to lower the voting age in this Parliament.
Alex Cunningham
Will votes at 16 be in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the next election?
Tom Brake
I am pleased to say that votes at 16 is very much party policy, and has been for a number of years. A point was made on whether political parties advocate the policy for their political advantage. We will have to see whether it is to the Liberal Democrats’ political advantage to give votes to 16 and 17-year-olds, but we have held a position of principle for many years that we want to see the policy adopted.
We have heard a variety of facts and figures, both for and against the proposal to lower the voting age, which demonstrates that the evidence is not clear cut. Most studies and polls seem to show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds favour lowering the voting age, although the situation is not always clear. A YouGov survey of 14 to 25-year-olds conducted for the Citizenship Foundation in November 2009 found a majority—54%—opposed to votes for 16-year-olds, with just 31% in favour. I regularly take straw polls when visiting schools in my constituency, and I can confirm that there is not unanimous support, even among 16 and 17-year-olds, for lowering the voting age.
The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2009, looked at ways of developing young people’s understanding of citizenship and increasing their participation in politics and, as part of that, whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. In its summer 2009 report, it did not find significant evidence on which to base a recommendation and did not believe that evidence that would lead to a clear conclusion was available or would become available in the foreseeable future. In light of that, it concluded that the question of whether the voting age should be lowered should be decided by political processes. That is clearly what today’s debate is about. While certainly not a silver-bullet solution, I believe that lowering the voting age would help engage young people at an early age in our democracy and political processes and give them a greater say over the many decisions that affect their lives and the world in which they will grow up.
Members have referred to the worrying levels of engagement among young people, and I echo their concerns. Registration among young people is lower than for other population groups. Turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, who of course can vote, has also been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, around a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds did not vote. In 1997, that rose to nearly 40%, then to around 45% in 2001 and 55% in 2005. We can all take individual action, and many Members have set out the contacts they have. They referred to the activities they undertake with schools to promote registration and political activity. There are things that we have to do as politicians, unpopular as we are. People may have their views about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but handing over responsibility for our expenses to an independent body was one of the collective actions we needed to take to restore credibility, which is lacking. The most recent Hansard Society annual audit found that only 24% of 18 to 24-year-olds said that they were certain to vote at the next election, and that is an alarming statistic.
A number of Members referred to citizenship education, which has been a compulsory part of the national curriculum in secondary schools for pupils aged 11 to 16 since 2002. It will not only be retained in the new national curriculum for teaching from September 2014 but will be strengthened. It will not be pared back, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said. We are all in agreement with her that citizenship education is key to this debate.
The Government are fully committed to doing what we can to increase voter registration levels. That point was made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who touched on independent electoral registration. He asked whether the Government were trying to increase voter registration, particularly among young people, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have announced that five national organisations and all 363 local authorities and valuation joint boards in Great Britain are sharing just over £4 million of funding to promote voter registration among under-registered groups, which include young people. In particular, UK Youth and the Scottish Youth Parliament are working exclusively on engaging young people, as are other organisations, such as Bite the Ballot. I am sure that many Members will have had opportunities to participate in events in their constituencies that Bite the Ballot has organised. I had the pleasure of doing that at Carshalton Boys Sports college a couple of weeks ago.
Reference has been made to the Scottish independence referendum. The hon. Gentleman said that this was the first time that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland had had the chance to vote. In fact, there have been health board and crofting commission elections in which they could participate. However, Members cannot read anything into the Scottish Parliament’s decision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum and any effect that that might have on the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament has powers to determine aspects of the referendum, and that is exactly what it has done.
One of the main focuses of the debate has been on the rights and responsibilities of 16-year-olds. We have heard lists of what young people can and cannot do at certain ages. Advocates on both sides of the argument have exchanged blows on those lists, and it is correct that the age limits change from time to time. In truth, however, those lists add relatively little to the debate. There is no standard age of majority in the UK at which one moves from being a child to being an adult. The lists are not pertinent to a debate on the specific issue of whether young people should be able to vote at 16 and 17.
After carrying out an extensive consultation and review, the Youth Citizenship Commission did not find significant evidence on which to base a recommendation, and that is why we are having a political debate on whether young people should be able to vote. There is no plan in this Parliament for a change to the voting age, but the Government welcome and encourage the involvement of young people in policy and decision making. Indeed, we are seeking to increase democratic engagement among the youth of this country through the Government-funded youth voice programme—Members will be well aware of many of its aspects—and the Youth Parliament, which I had the pleasure of welcoming to the Chamber last November. The Youth Select Committee is an important innovation that mirrors parliamentary inquiries. It is now in its third year and I look forward to giving evidence to it. I am sure that we all commend the young people on it for their hard work on their inquiries.
To conclude, the debate has again shown the divergent views in this House on whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be eligible to vote, and that reflects differing opinions on the issue in society at large. There is also no consensus within the Government on the issue. It was not included in the coalition agreement and there are no plans for a change in this Parliament. We are, however, taking a range of measures to encourage young people to register and to ensure that their voices are heard. I am sure that debate on whether to lower the voting age will continue and, for my part, I support the proposal and welcome the ongoing debate.
Easter Adjournment
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
It is a pleasure to respond to the pre-recess Adjournment debate. As is customary, I will do so at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who opened the debate. Hon. Members who can see the Dispatch Box will notice that I have a significant number of notes relating to the points he raised—I will take them in no particular order—but I hope to leave time to respond to the points made by other hon. Members as well.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Maldives and the double taxation and bilateral investment treaties. I will ensure that his comments are passed on to the Treasury, which is the lead Department on this issue. It is clearly important that action is taken to strengthen the Maldives economy. We hope that President Yameen will now work towards economic reform in the Maldives, in addition to considering the treaties.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Assisted Dying Bill. The Government believe that any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for Government policy. The Government will take a collective view on the Bill in order to respond to the debate on Second Reading, a date for which has yet to be confirmed.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of dog breeding—puppy farming—about which there is a significant petition. Legislation is already in place to control the breeding and selling of dogs. Local authorities have powers to grant licences for dog-breeding establishments, and have powers of refusal based on the grounds of welfare. Powers are also available to local authorities to investigate and enter premises in relation to allegations of poor welfare or cruelty.
My hon. Friend referred to the all-party group on hepatology. The Department of Health is concerned by the increasing burden of liver disease—he said it was the fifth biggest killer—and the resulting premature mortality, much of which is preventable. Together with NHS England and Public Health England, the Department of Health will support local authorities and clinical commissioning groups in their responsibility to deliver improved outcomes in relation to liver disease.
My hon. Friend mentioned the controversial issue of gender selection abortion. As I am sure he and other hon. Members are aware, abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. The Abortion Act 1967 states that two practitioners must be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman has grounds for an abortion according to the criteria set out in the Act. The chief medical officer has written twice to all doctors involved with abortion provision to remind them of the need to ensure that they work within the law at all times.
My hon. Friend also referred to melanoma. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended Yervoy as an option for treating advanced melanoma in people who have previously received therapy. NHS commissioners are required to fund Yervoy if there is an indication that clinicians want to use it. NICE is currently developing guidance on the drug’s use in previously untreated, unresectable stage 3 or 4 malignant melanoma.
I hope I have addressed all the medical issues to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will now talk about Quilliam. In a previous guise, when I was my party’s home affairs spokesman, I had knowledge of that organisation. He talked about the need to ensure that we address the promotion of extremism on the internet. Members will be aware that terrorist groups make extensive use of the internet to spread their propaganda, and we have seen how that can contribute to individuals becoming radicalised. A number of those convicted under the terrorism Acts were exposed to radicalising content that they found online, including Inspire magazine, sermons and bomb-making instructions. A number of people who have been involved in terrorist activity have admitted to accessing radicalising content online. Keeping up with the scale and pace of terrorist and extremist content online remains a challenge, so it is important that we have a balanced approach, including working with industry, law enforcement and the public. The police counter-terrorism internet referral unit is removing more illegal terrorist content than previously. Since 2010 we have taken down more than 29,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of Seetec recruitment in Southend, and he talked about South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. He previously talked about the trust’s services in the pre-recess Adjournment debate in December 2013. He had an opportunity to discuss his concerns in Westminster Hall on 5 March this year, and I hope he secured suitable responses. It is crucial that all NHS care providers deliver care to the highest standard possible. As a local MP, he is well placed to help ensure that the trust is held to that high standard. I hope he will continue to engage with the trust, local GP commissioners and national regulators to that end, and I am sure he will.
My hon. Friend raised the further health issue of thalidomide victims. He will know that on 20 December 2012 the Department of Health announced a new 10-year grant for the Thalidomide Trust. The grant will be paid on an annual basis, uprated in line with inflation, which means that over the 10-year period it will be worth some £80 million. The Department of Health currently has no plans to make representations to the German Government on compensation from Grünenthal to the UK victims of thalidomide, but the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care services, hopes to meet representatives from the Thalidomide Trust to discuss the matter further.
My hon. Friend praised Westcliff high school for girls in his constituency, which has the second-best GCSE results in the country. I congratulate the school. In 2013, 100% of pupils achieved five or more A to C grades. The school cannot do any better, but it now has the challenge of maintaining that performance hereafter.
My hon. Friend mentioned tongue-tied breastfeeding—it is very difficult to say “tongue-tied.” I was not aware of the issue, and I do not know how many other Members were aware of it, but he is right to raise its profile, particularly as he has found that even medical practitioners are not necessarily aware of the condition. I hope there will now be greater recognition. He will be pleased to know that NICE has issued full guidance to the NHS on division of tongue-tie for breastfeeding. He asked for a meeting with Health Ministers, and although I cannot commit the diaries of other Ministers, I am sure he will pursue the matter vigorously. I am sure that the Department of Health will look carefully at the different health-related points that he has raised during this debate in case there are things that it wants to respond to him on directly.
That might include the issue of FH. I will leave it at that, rather than spelling out precisely what it stands for. My hon. Friend may know that the NICE clinical guidelines recommend that health care professionals should use cascade testing to identify people with FH. Those guidelines represent best practice as they are based on the available evidence and developed through wide consultation. In view of their complexity and the different states of readiness for implementation in the NHS, clinical guidelines are not subject to the same statutory funding requirement as NICE’s technology appraisals.
My hon. Friend clearly has some strong views about the effectiveness of the Essex probation trust. I understand that he has corresponded with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice about rehabilitation services in Essex. I am sure he welcomes the changes that the Government are making to ensure that people who were not receiving support and assistance will do so. He has put his concerns on the record. I am sure that in any process of assessing individual bids, the competence of the organisations that submit the bids will be taken into account.
My hon. Friend spoke about Bahrain. The Government remain supportive of the reforms that are under way in Bahrain. We commend the steps that have been taken by the Bahraini Government to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry. Progress has been made in a number of areas, but there is more to be done. We encourage the Bahraini Government to ensure that the remaining recommendations are implemented soon.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of ensuring that drug treatment is tailored to the individual. I certainly support that. It must be the most effective way to help someone overcome their addiction and to reduce the health harms that are associated with their illicit opiate use. It is for NICE to decide when there is sufficient evidence to update its guidance and appraisals. It might be considering that issue at the moment.
My hon. Friend spoke about the wine and spirits industry and wine duty. I am sure that he supports the steps taken in the Budget, such as the reduction in beer duty and, in relation to the spirits industry, the freezing of the duty on Scotch whisky. We all know that pubs are an important community asset where people socialise and consume alcohol responsibly. Supporting pubs through the reduction in beer duty was therefore a welcome measure. Ending the wine duty escalator will support pubs that have diversified away from beer. It also ensures that beer and wine duties remain broadly similar, as is required under EU law.
The last thing that my hon. Friend raised was the issue of CCTV spy cars, which councils use in some circumstances to raise money by issuing parking fines. The feeling among drivers is that they suddenly receive a fine some weeks later, when they are not aware that they have committed an offence. Clearly, we do not propose to do anything to prevent a parking warden or police officer from issuing a penalty in cases of genuinely dangerous parking. We want to ensure that, particularly around schools, parking restrictions are enforced. Parents often request the presence of a CCTV car to monitor other parents who do not observe the rules and, as a result, might endanger the safety of children. I hope that I have dealt with all my hon. Friend’s points.
I now move on to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Sir Edward Leigh
May I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House? In all my time here, that is the fullest reply I have ever heard to any Member’s speech. It was fantastic, and we now want him to give as full a reply to all the other speeches.
Tom Brake
I rather worried that the final sentence of my hon. Friend’s intervention would be a requirement to respond in suitable detail to all the other speeches. I do not want to give away any secrets, but there are advantages to Members letting me know in advance what will be in their speech, because it perhaps ensures a slightly greater degree of detail in the response. Fortunately for me, however, my neighbour the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden raised an issue with which I am extremely familiar—the future of St Helier hospital, which is in my constituency—so I required no briefing notes from officials on it. I have been living, eating and breathing it for the past 25 years or so, and my wife had my children there.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, £219 million was allocated to St Helier under the previous Government, which I welcomed, and that was confirmed under the current Government, which I also fully supported. As she said, a review called Better Services Better Value was put forward. Had the Surrey GPs not said that they did not support it, it would potentially have led to the closure of the A and E and maternity services at St Helier and Epsom, which I opposed. She referred to the 13,000 signatures on her petition, and I think mine currently has 19,000, so we are both raising awareness of the issue. She commended the supporters of the campaign in Merton, as I do, and a wide range of organisations in Sutton, such as the league of friends, that are campaigning on the issue.
I must say, however, that I do not think it is entirely helpful to the campaign to try to make it partisan in the way that I am afraid some of the hon. Lady’s fellow party members have. They have claimed that clause 119 of the Care Bill will allow the Secretary of State for Health to close any hospital anywhere in the country at any time if he decides on a whim to do so. That is clearly not what the clause is about. It is about scenarios such as Mid Staffordshire, where the way in which the hospital was run meant that more patients were dying than should have been the case. In a very limited number of circumstances—it has been used only twice—there is a need to take urgent action, and that is what the clause is about. It is not about a well run hospital such as St Helier, which is in category 6, the category for the safest hospitals in the country. I wish that that argument were not being deployed, because it does not add to the campaign, which is strong enough as it is. The hon. Lady and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is also campaigning hard on the issue, will continue to run the campaign.
The hon. Lady also referred to surgery schemes that have stalled. I am sure that her local clinical commissioning group will have noted her concerns, and I hope that it will respond promptly, and preferably positively. I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Health Minister, to ensure that the Department of Health takes whatever action it can.
The hon. Lady referred to GPs charging for letters. I am not aware of any other organisations that I contact that charge for providing a letter to assist a Member of Parliament in pursuing casework—I do not know whether any other Members know of any. It is regrettable that some GPs choose to do that. I should point out, however, that although GPs have a statutory duty to provide certain things for free, they may charge fees in some circumstances. I will ensure that her concerns are raised with the Department of Health and that it responds to her directly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said that the pre-recess Adjournment debates are one of the highlights of the year, and I agree with him. He referred to the butterfly supping on the nectar of a flower alongside the A40. I hate to spoil the picture that he built up for us, but I suspect that by now the butterfly has been demolished by a juggernaut driving along the A40. I heard on Radio 4 that this has been a slightly better year so far for butterflies, and I also felt rather guilty about removing a substantial amount of ivy from a tree when I learnt from the same programme that ivy is exactly what butterflies need in the winter and to provide nectar in the autumn when few flowers are available.
My hon. Friend also talked about vultures and I think we all wondered for a moment what he was about to say. He then mentioned the European Union and I thought it would be one of those stories in which the EU is to blame for everything. In this case, it would seem that the EU is to be blamed for the deaths of European vultures. I will ensure that, if appropriate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responds on the issue of bearded vultures as I know that my right hon. Friend identifies with those birds and wants to see their numbers grow—
Sir John Randall
I just wish to point out that the bearded vulture is also known as the lammergeier and the bone breaker.
Tom Brake
We have learnt two more stunning twitcher facts this afternoon. They will go down on the record, and in years to come people will read my right hon. Friend’s contribution and benefit from his expertise in bird watching.
My right hon. Friend also explained that Malta was not on his holiday list until it addressed the issue of turtledoves and the wall of lead that birds fly into as they approach that island. He then went on to the subject of the Wildlife Trusts and the campaign it is running to save grasslands as part of our natural environment—something that I am sure we would all support. He referred to the Allerton project which is a farm that operates on a commercial basis, but takes its conservation responsibilities very seriously. That best practice should perhaps be more widely promoted, and I am pleased that DEFRA is aware of it.
My right hon. Friend then talked about the modern slavery Bill, and I am sure that the Home Office will look seriously at the recommendations from the Joint Committee. I agree that modern-day slavery is an abomination. Members of Parliament all read their local papers avidly, and we can all spot the cases of modern slavery they contain, such as the brothels that have been closed down or the cannabis farms that can be found in all sorts of places, including neat, tidy and relatively affluent suburbs such as Sutton, Carshalton and Wallington. Cannabis farms are regularly found in houses, empty warehouses and empty blocks of flats. My right hon. Friend referred to early-day motion 1257. He does not normally support early-day motions, but this one was to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Anti- Slavery International, and we join him in congratulating that organisation on its anniversary.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned his central library and the investment that has gone into it. He said that he was not being partisan in saying that the London borough of Hillingdon was brilliant in terms of its library provision, and I am not being partisan when I say the same about the London borough of Sutton, where we have also succeeded in investing in libraries, especially those that work jointly with sports centres and so on to maximise footfall and other benefits.
My right hon. Friend plugged Northern Ireland as a holiday destination, and I agree with him that it is a place that everyone should visit. Great steps forward have been taken since the Good Friday agreement, but some significant issues still need to be addressed. We are all very pleased that he got a bat detector for Christmas. I hope he makes good use of it.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) also mentioned the Wildlife Trusts and praised its work. He touched on residents’ associations. We all have effective residents’ associations working hard in our constituencies. In my case, they are fighting against a proposal for a very large McDonald’s on Stafford road. He referred to RAF Northolt, wanting to ensure that any consultation, for example on plans to increase the number of flights, goes beyond just Hillingdon council. I will pass on his concerns to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that perhaps a wider consultation is embarked upon.
The hon. Gentleman referred to underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic people in the media. The Government are committed to black and minority ethnic diversity in TV, film and the arts, both on and off screen. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) recently met leading figures from these sectors to consider options to improve representation. I think we all support the idea that people who appear on our screens or on our airwaves should be fully representative of the population as a whole, and be in roles that do not stereotype.
Tom Brake
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about monitoring data no longer being published. I cannot provide any further information, but I will, as he requests, ask the Minister to respond.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a decline in police numbers in Harrow. The independent crime survey has identified that since 2010 the level of crime has gone down by 10%. That is something we can all welcome. I note the drop in the number of officers in his borough as a result of changes that have happened in London. I have seen a similar decline in the number of officers in Sutton. My concern is that people need the reassurance of police visibility. As a result of these changes, there is concern that the deterrent effect is not what it used to be. His concerns are on the record. The Mayor of London may wish, if he is following this debate, to respond directly to him on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) had the novel proposal, which I think we all wish we had thought of ourselves, of redirecting the Tour de France through every single road in his constituency, or at least the ones that are the responsibility of Essex county council, to ensure that all the potholes are filled in. I commend him for his initiative. He clearly has strong views on his county council and has used this debate to put them on the record. On the subject of potholes, he will be pleased to hear that in this financial year the Department for Transport is providing more than £1 billion to local authorities for local highways maintenance, which includes tackling potholes. There was, of course, £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs. I hope he welcomes the activity on this front. He also referred to an exchange on quarterly meetings of Essex MPs. I would hope that any local authority seeking to work with its Members of Parliament would not choose to do so in a way that gives favour to one party over another. I hope it takes note of this debate.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the Co-op Group, which, as she knows, is going through a difficult time. The resignation of Lord Myners from the board after some directors criticised his review of the group’s structure has created further instability, and the group is now facing losses of up to £2 billion. There is clearly a need for action, and she did a very good job of specifying the action that she considered appropriate. I am sure that the members of the Co-op Group will read carefully what she had to say. They clearly need to put their house in order—something that only they can do—and I agree with her that a period of calm reflection, building trust and confidence is required. I also agree with her that if we were to lose the Co-op, we would lose some of the richness and variety from which we currently benefit.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he felt that there was unintended bias on the part of the BBC. I suspect that, whatever coverage it had or had not given to Nelson Mandela, there would have been an issue: the coverage would have been too little for some, or too much for others. I am not sure that the BBC could ever have got everyone on board. What the hon. Gentleman certainly did, however, was reinforce the point that his constituency is key and should not be neglected at the expense of any other constituency in the country, especially given that it was so badly affected by a tidal surge. He drew attention—perhaps with some justification—to the difference between the coverage of the floods that hit the south and the coverage of those that hit the north.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) concentrated on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which the Government fully support. He praised the work that the Department for International Development is doing. I agree with him that the fact that the United Kingdom is the only large industrialised nation that is contributing 0.7% of its GDP to overseas aid gives us significant clout in discussions on these matters, and that much of our investment in developing countries benefits the UK as well. That cannot be stressed too often. The Government certainly would not want any actions involving the extractive industries to reduce investment in developing countries, because that investment, and growth in those countries, can make a far bigger contribution to their development than even the significant level of financial aid that comes from countries such as the UK. If the transparency initiative comes to fruition in three years’ time—as the hon. Gentleman and I hope it will—we shall be able to learn a great deal from it about best practice which could be applied to other industries.
I think we would all agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that Parliament should be made more relevant to people’s needs. I do not necessarily agree with some of the solutions he suggested, but I would certainly welcome a debate on the subject. One of the issues that we must address is the under-representation of different communities and women in the House. If we want Parliament to be more relevant to people’s needs, we must ensure that there is a better representation of people from different backgrounds and genders. He may be right in saying that open primaries could be a way of achieving that, but there are a number of other things that we can do. Many of the actions taken by the Government since 2010, such as the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee —as well as the actions taken by Select Committee Chairs to raise the profile of Select Committees and election to them—have led people to believe that Parliament represents their views slightly more effectively than it used to, and some of the polls have confirmed that. Clearly, more can be done. For instance, there is a move to ensure that we enhance the handling of petitions within the online petition system, which I think members of the public will appreciate, too. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions to ways in which we can ensure that Parliament reflects people’s needs or is more relevant to them. I am not going to comment on whether there are too many Ministers in the Government, although I point out that in my case I am a Minister but at least I am not paid, so there is no impact on the payroll.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) raised the issue of rail freight, which he campaigns on vigorously. He set out a scheme that is being put forward by the GB freight group at a minimal cost, he said, of £6 billion, which would enable freight to go from Glasgow to the channel tunnel and beyond to Beijing, which would be quite a journey. We would need to take lots of sandwiches and many flasks of tea to get from Glasgow to Beijing on that freight train, but that would certainly open up new markets to freight. I will pass on his interest in that scheme to the Department for Transport. He said Ministers in past Governments and, indeed, the current Government were supportive but he felt the blockage may be elsewhere.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) raised the issue of housing. It was also mentioned by a number of other Members. I would like to put on record some of the progress we have made. Almost 420,000 homes have been built since April 2010. The new housing construction output is now at its highest level since the crash in 2008 and housing starts are at the highest level since 2007 as well. We are therefore making progress. We believe that by the end of this Government we will have more affordable homes than there were at the start of the Government, something previous Governments have not achieved. We expect to deliver 165,000 new homes in three years. That will be the fastest rate of delivery in the past 20 years. I agree with him that increasing house building can address many issues beyond those of homelessness, overcrowding and employment. He also raised the issue of the impact of immigration on the housing shortage. Clearly, the UK has seen substantial inward migration. That is something the Government are now starting to tackle, and clearly immigration does have an impact on housing.
I had an interesting meeting a couple of weeks ago with an organisation called Pocket which is trying to develop, on a relatively small scale, on areas of land in London that are perhaps difficult for larger developers to use, and which would provide housing for those caught in the middle—people who will never be able to access affordable housing because of their income, but who in London at least are very unlikely to be able to afford to buy housing because of the level of house prices. That sort of initiative can make a contribution.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that cycling is not easy in rural areas. I agree: the distances might be greater and it may be hillier and windier. Those who advocate cycling, including me, do not all argue that everyone has to cycle wherever they live and whatever distances are involved. He rightly highlighted the issue of fuel costs and the impact they can have, particularly on people in rural areas. I know colleagues from all parties—particularly those from rural areas and places like Scotland—are very concerned about that. He welcomed the measures the Government are taking to address fuel costs and I know he would like us to go further, but the Government are aware of the issue and we are doing as much as we can.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to having the country’s first state-sponsored Hindu primary school in his constituency, and said that it is now going to have the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school. I wish the schools well. He also mentioned Anmer Lodge, and expressed concerns about the scale of that development. His contribution highlighted the difficulties that any area faces when trying to address the housing issue. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we need to increase provision but local residents need to feel that that is being done in a way that does not present a challenge to them.
The hon. Member for Harrow East is clearly not going to be buying a season ticket for Barnet football club. Indeed, he probably would not be given one if he asked. Many Members will have football clubs in residential areas of their constituencies, and they can have a significant impact. I do not know whether that is the case in his constituency, but the problems can be exacerbated in that kind of environment. I am sure that his concerns will be listened to in the appropriate places.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, saying that he wanted the development of that centre of excellence to happen as soon as possible. He will have noticed that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) is in her place and that she heard his speech. That subject is on her agenda, and she is aware of his concerns. He also mentioned the difficulty of getting in and out of Stanmore station because there was no lift, and I understand his reasons for wanting action to be taken on that as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talked about a variety of issues. He mentioned the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. He and other Members will have received proposals with names that, on the face of it, sound positive but which might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, given the impact they could have on the local health service. The Department of Health, NHS England and the trusts need to take into account the medical benefits of specialisation—as happened in London, for example, in relation to stroke services—as well as the possible disbenefit that can derive from a lack of access to local services. The right balance needs to be struck.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to his campaign to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. As the Liberal Democrats’ party spokesman on aviation back in 1997, I confirmed at the time that our policy was to oppose a third runway, and we have not deviated from that position since then. On housing, he referred to the refusal to respond to freedom of information requests relating to a wide range of issues. It is incumbent on all local authorities, and the Government, to be as open and helpful as possible in relation to FOI requests.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has apologised for leaving the debate early. I understand that he had to catch a train. He referred to the need to take action in relation to the missing link between the M4 and the M5. He also rightly concentrated on the importance of regenerating the city of Gloucester and the Greater Blackfriars area. From his description, the area certainly sounds ripe for investment and will provide an opportunity to deliver a vision for the city.
Members will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. He explained some of the technical advantages of being able to see not only what was on the surface but also what was below it. That is an invaluable asset when dealing with submarines. He also said that we needed to work in partnership with our allies. That is something that I welcome, although there could be times when it is difficult to achieve. He will know that defence procurement is an area in which the Government have had to take action to address significant overruns. However, he could not have put his request for the maritime patrol aircraft more clearly, and I will ensure that those in the Ministry of Defence see his speech and respond to him on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am on to my last note, which says “Thank you” at the top, so thank you for chairing this debate so ably. I thank also all Members who have taken part in what has been a fairly comprehensive tour, from butterflies on the A4 to the Maldives. I conclude by thanking my officials who have worked in supporting me today, and the House authorities for keeping us safe. I hope everyone has an absolutely fantastic Easter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Unusually, I think the House should thank the Minister for his extremely thorough response to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Electoral Commission
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners:
(1) Ms Bridget Prentice for the period ending on 30 September 2018; and
(2) Mr Alasdair Morgan for the period ending on 30 September 2016.
The Electoral Commission was established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as a body independent of Government. The chair of the Electoral Commission and the other electoral commissioners are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, following an address from the House of Commons.
The procedure for appointing electoral commissioners is put in place and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Candidates’ names are put before the House with the agreement of the Speaker. The Speaker’s Committee follows best practice guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in relation to commissioner appointments.
Section 5 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which inserted new section 3A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, states that four of the electoral commissioners should be persons put forward by the registered leader of a qualifying party for consideration for appointment. Those commissioners are described in the statute as “nominated Commissioners”. A qualifying party is one with two or more Members on the Floor of the House of Commons.
The motion before the House asks Her Majesty to appoint Ms Bridget Prentice as the electoral commissioner nominated by the leader of the Labour party to succeed Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and Mr Alasdair Morgan as the electoral commissioner nominated by the leader of the Scottish National party to succeed the right hon. Sir George Reid. Lord Kennedy and Sir George Reid have served the Speaker’s Committee and the House diligently. I know that Mr Speaker and the other members of the Speaker’s Committee would want me to place on the record their gratitude for the dedication of those commissioners to the work of the Electoral Commission.
Ms Prentice’s term will end on 30 September 2018 and Mr Morgan’s term will run until 30 September 2016, as has been the practice for such appointments. Given that both posts are vacant, the terms of both candidates will commence following Her Majesty’s decision to appoint them.
The candidates who are named in the motion have extensive political and electoral experience, as is highlighted in the report that was published by the Speaker’s Committee, which has been tagged as a document relevant to this debate. Ms Prentice served as the Member of Parliament for Lewisham East from 1992 to 2010, and as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice from 2005 to 2010. As a Minister, she was responsible for 14 areas of policy, including electoral administration. Mr Morgan was a Member of the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. He has demonstrated a deep knowledge of electoral processes and regulations. He also has a record of building consensus through chairing and convening a number of parliamentary Committees, including the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the Scottish Parliament.
The statute requires that the motion be tabled with the agreement of the Speaker. I confirm that Mr Speaker has signified his consent. I trust that the House will approve the motion, and I commend it to the House.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I ask colleagues to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and to support amendments (b) and (c) in lieu. I hope the House will also be persuaded to disagree with amendment (a), which was tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I wish to say at the outset that I cannot agree with his comments about the lack of consultation. If he looks at what has happened since this Bill got under way and, for example, at the ministerial quarterly reports, he will see the extent of consultation that has taken place on the Bill. The fact that many of today’s amendments have been the subject of consultation in this place and in the House of Lords, and have reflected to a great extent the concerns expressed by a range of organisations, underlines the fact that substantial consultation has taken place on this subject. Indeed, many of those changes are inspired by his Committee.
I must also say that repeatedly stating that charities will not be able to campaign on policy matters, as we have heard Opposition Members do, does not make it true.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On the process by which we are having to deal with this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament is being made a laughing stock by the fact that we are trying to concertina such a complex issue into such a short time? Does that not undermine any credibility this Government had? They are supposed to be championing the big society, but they are trying to muzzle it, both in the Bill and in the process they are setting out here today.
Tom Brake
First, it is not unusual for things to proceed at this pace. I should also point out that what we are supposed to be focusing on in this debate is a limited number of amendments that have come from the Lords and some amendments in lieu that the Government are proposing—that is today’s subject. I do not want to make too long a speech, because I can see from the requests for interventions that a lot of hon. Members want to speak on this group.
Amendment 1 was moved on Report in the House of Lords by Lord Tyler and was agreed to by a majority of 18 votes. The amendment would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries. We debated this issue ourselves when discussing the amendments tabled in Committee by the Opposition, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and other Members. During that debate, the Government made it clear that the register was designed to complement the existing government transparency regime and to address a specific problem.
It may help if I first remind the House of the context for the part 1 provisions—the unique open government context in which they have been developed. Transparency is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We are opening up government and the public sector, and by doing so we are enhancing transparency, participation and accountability. [Interruption.] The noises from Opposition Members need to be quiescent for just a couple of seconds because I want to outline the things the Government have done since 2010 to open up transparency. We have published unprecedented amounts of information about decision makers and decision making. Since 2010, we have proactively and regularly published the following details: Ministers’ private interests; Ministers and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations or individuals; Ministers and special advisers’ meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives; all gifts of hospitality received by Ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers; ministerial overseas travel; all official and charity receptions held at No. 10; and those who have received hospitality at Chequers and Chevening.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain when the Government will release the vital information on exchanges between President Bush and the then Prime Minister of this country as it is delaying the Chilcot inquiry and has delayed it for the past three years?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the Chilcot inquiry website, so he can access that. I am sure that Mr Speaker will not allow me to take this debate on to the subject of Chilcot when it is very much a focused debate on the amendments under consideration.
The list I have just read out is impressive in terms of opening up transparency. In addition, we have published the names, job titles and pay bands of all civil servants earning more than £80,000, and the job titles and pay bands of all other roles. Such initiatives are shining the light of transparency on to the actions of decision makers and are empowering citizens to hold politicians and public bodies to account. Despite being recognised leaders in open government, we are not complacent. We heard from colleagues in both Houses that there is more we can do to extend further transparency in Government and the public sector. We listened carefully to those concerns and, in response to my colleague, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, we made a commitment to improving the accessibility of Government transparency information. Specifically, the Government committed to ensuring better co-ordination of the publication of datasets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page.
We will improve the access to and the presentation of that data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also seek to ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting and to include the subject of meetings. Finally we will ensure that the Government.UK transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.
Andrew Gwynne
Surely the Minister recognises that the first port of call for many lobbyists is not the Minister or the permanent secretary but the political adviser in that Department or other civil servants. Is that not the gaping hole in this lobbying Bill? It does nothing to tackle the real lobbying that is taking place.
Tom Brake
The Government are focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries because of their key decision-making roles. Ultimately, they make the decisions in Government. We will of course come to the issue of special advisers.
The measures will further improve the transparency of decision makers. It is equally important that the actions of those who seek to influence decision makers are also transparent. We have been clear that lobbying plays a vital role in policy making, ensuring that Ministers hear a full range of views from those who will be affected by Government decisions, particularly in the more participative and open policy-making environment that we are promoting. It is crucial that the fluency of this dialogue is protected.
Barbara Keeley
Did the Minister not hear the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about recent reports based on freedom of information requests of senior civil servants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change meeting lobbyists from the shale gas industry to give them lines to take? I am talking about hospitality, meetings and e-mails. That is not balanced; that is not hearing both sides of the argument. If that is the relationship between DECC civil servants and the shale gas companies, does the Minister not understand that there is no balance in that whatever?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I am not aware of the details to which the hon. Lady has referred. Again, I restate the fact that this is about ensuring there is transparency around the people who make the decisions in Government, and that is perfectly appropriate.
By publishing details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations and individuals, we have enhanced the transparency of that dialogue, without diminishing its vibrancy. There is one element of the dialogue, however, that remains potentially hidden and that is when organisations or individuals make communications to Ministers and permanent secretaries via consultant lobbyists. That is because it is not always clear which third-party interests are being represented by such lobbyists. The provisions for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists provided for by part 1 of the Bill address that specific problem. They will identify the interests represented by consultant lobbyists by requiring them to disclose details of their clients on a publicly available register.
There has been some criticism of the Government’s proposals for a register, but there has been no consensus on what should replace it. I recognise that some in this place have suggested that the scope of the register should be broader to capture all those who communicate with Government and require them to disclose extensive information regarding their activities and finances. There has, however, been no clear articulation of the problem that such proposals would address.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Having chided Opposition Members for complaining about the lack of time, saying that they should concentrate on the actual amendment, perhaps the Minister himself could come to the amendment rather than reprising his Second Reading speech.
Tom Brake
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is precisely what I am doing. The failure to make the case for a higher-regulatory model has meant that neither House felt it appropriate to extend the scope of the Government’s provisions. That is not to say, however, that each place has not made very real contributions to ensuring that we deliver robust and effective provisions for a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, the provisions were amended to ensure absolute clarity regarding the register’s application to parliamentarians. We also amended the Bill to ensure that the register does not impose disproportionate burdens on the smallest businesses. Further amendments were made in the House of Lords and many of those reflected discussion and debate within this Chamber.
Lord Tyler’s, amendment, which was agreed to by just 18 votes, would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers. I understand why he was seeking to make that change. However, it is the coalition Government’s view that it would dissociate the register from the clearly articulated problem that it is designed to address. The amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would further detach the register from its objective, by extending the scope of the register to those who lobby senior civil servants.
The register is designed to complement the system by which Ministers and permanent secretaries publish their meetings and to address a specific and discrete problem within that context. Our view is that to extend the scope of the register to other public officials would provide no appreciable benefits because they are not required to publish their diaries.
Yes, we accept that lobbyists make communications to Government other than directly to Ministers and permanent secretaries, but ultimately it is Ministers and permanent secretaries who are responsible for the decisions taken within their Departments. Lord Tyler suggests that the register should apply to those who lobby special advisers. Special advisers may provide advice, but they are not decision makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their Departments; and it is therefore only right that Ministers, not special advisers, are the main focus of the meeting reporting system and the register.
Luciana Berger
The Minister will know as he has been in this place a while—I am a relatively new MP; I have been here only since May 2010—that when we see a Minister, as we often do in Portcullis House or around this building, they often have, on their right arm, a special adviser. That special adviser is with them morning, noon and night, and also has meetings in the evenings and at weekends. The idea that we can dissociate that special adviser from the Minister is frankly ridiculous. I cannot understand the Minister’s rationale.
Tom Brake
I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have not finished my comments in relation to special advisers. There is an amendment in lieu to which I am about to refer. Ultimately, whether or not there are contacts with the special adviser, it is not the special adviser who signs off the decision; it is the Minister.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The description I would use is glued at the hip. Coming to this place as an outsider, my observation is that special advisers are absolutely key to decision making. If our aim is genuinely to improve transparency, we will miss an important opportunity if we do not include special advisers.
Tom Brake
I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have not finished commenting on special advisers, so perhaps I should pursue that. There might be further interventions, but let us wait and see.
Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person
“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.
The Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes it clear that they may not authorise the expenditure of public funds, exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the state or otherwise exercise any statutory or prerogative power.
As the code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available from the permanent civil service. I must restate this: unlike a Minister or permanent secretary, a special adviser is not a decision maker, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) says, they are attached to the Minister’s hip. We are aware, however, that there are those in this House who agree—[Interruption.] Members need to listen.
We are aware that some Members agree with the conclusion of the House of Lords that communications with special advisers should be captured. Indeed, many Liberal Democrat peers and Members of Parliament agree that they should be captured, but no amendments were tabled to extend the scope of the register in such a way when the issue was discussed in this House. In the House of Lords, Lord Tyler’s amendment was agreed to, but by a small majority.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that Lynton Crosby would be covered both by the code of conduct and the amendment that the Government have tabled today?
Mr Redwood
Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain the position of a senior official who happens to chair a committee or run a quango that has decision-making powers?
Tom Brake
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the third-party register of lobbyists focuses specifically on Ministers or permanent secretaries. That is what is before us today.
We are not persuaded that the calls to capture communications with special advisers are sufficiently strong to justify amending the Bill in the manner that Lord Tyler proposes. We are, however, aware that the discussion about including such communications within the scope of the register is likely to continue. We therefore propose as a contingency an amendment in lieu that would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by clause 2 so that it could subsequently, if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they were persuaded of the case for doing so without the need for primary legislation. It should therefore assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expansion of the scope if it is justified in future.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us how many groups or organisations have met the permanent secretary at his Department in relation to this Bill, so that we get a flavour of how an effective a route that is?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer to that question immediately. However, if she wants, she can do what a number of newspapers have done when they have produced so-called scoops. They have gone through the quarterly ministerial reports, looked at the meetings registered and added up the number of meetings with the permanent secretary. That information is there if she wants to pursue the question.
Mark Durkan
On the question of the definition of “special adviser”, will the definition the Deputy Leader of the House has cited include the new class of policy advisers who, we are told, will be “specialist” rather than “special” advisers and will be appointed by Ministers to move policy along in significant areas?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The argument so far has concentrated on any lobbying of the final decision maker, but does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that the process of eventually making the decision is equally important? That starts with senior civil servants and goes through special advisers, and is as important as any lobbying of the final decision maker.
Tom Brake
I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to require the Government to publish all the internal workings of government, but that is not done by any Government. My view is that the Government’s proposed amendments in lieu will be a pragmatic response to the Lords’ concerns.
Let me turn to the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I should remind the House that we have discussed the matter and that no relevant amendments were moved. Similar amendments were moved in the House of Lords, and the extension of the register to public officials such as civil servants was rejected by a substantial majority of 51. As I have outlined, the register is intended to complement the existing Government transparency regime. Both systems are intended to enhance the transparency of key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—and those who communicate with them.
Mark Durkan
It is somewhat unfair of the Minister to rely on the fact that no amendments to expand the scope of the register to include special advisers were moved in this House. Many amendments were tabled that would have extended the scope to include special advisers and senior civil servants, and it was only the exigencies of time that meant that Members did not move them, as they would have lost time for debate by calling a Division.
Tom Brake
Had we had the opportunity to discuss amendments on civil servants, for instance, we could have considered the impact, the scale—that is, how many thousands of civil servants it would have included—and the potential costs associated with such an extension. In some ways, I would have welcomed that.
As we have previously outlined, there is little value in extending the scope of the register to those who are not required to publish their meeting details. We are not persuaded that the introduction of meeting reporting obligations for senior civil servants is appropriate. Such a system would result in an unnecessary, disproportionate and unhelpful administrative burden and the cost to the public purse could not be justified in the light of the limited transparency benefits that would be achieved.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Given that amendments (b) and (c) were made available only at 11 o'clock this morning, it would be really helpful if the House could understand the differences between the proposals of the amendments in lieu and those in Lords amendment 1. The House deserves a clear explanation.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The clear explanation is that our amendments in lieu provide an opportunity for such a change at a point in the future, if the debate leads to a consensus on proceeding with the reporting of special advisers’ meetings. That is what we are facilitating. Who knows? A future Labour Government might well have to make that decision, and it would be interesting to know whether they would want to take it.
There are about 5,000 senior civil servants in the UK. Is there really public interest in seeing the details of all their meetings with external organisations? [Interruption.] Surely the huge costs that that would involve are hardly justified. I heard a number of Members saying “Yes” from a sedentary position, but I wonder if any of them have costed the possible impact and the effect that such a change would have on the activities of those 5,000 senior civil servants. I am waiting—
Stephen Doughty
No, it will not be. The Deputy Leader of the House spoke earlier about the decision being made “if and when” Ministers were persuaded. What criteria would he use to decide “if and when” he was persuaded?
Tom Brake
We would need consensus within the coalition Government that we wanted to proceed in such a way. As I stated, a number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and peers would like to see us proceed in such a way, but we are not in a position to do that and that is why, if the position changes, we are facilitating either this Government or a future Government in taking such a decision without primary legislation. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not use his intervention to outline the cost of extending the provision to 5,000 civil servants, which now seems to be the official policy position of the Opposition.
Mr Allen
May I again commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman, a sensible and capable Front Bencher, on being lumbered with the Bill? I am sincerely sorry that he has been landed with this—I hope that it does not influence his long-term career prospects.
Making legislation on the hoof may allow us to repent at leisure. I would like the House to understand what was added to the amendment paper last night, because I do not understand it as much as I would like. Is the crux of amendment (b) on special advisers the word “may”—regulations may be made some time in future—which does not need to be included in the Bill, as the Government can introduce new legislation to do that, or is it a commitment that, with some certainty, that provision will be introduced in the near future? If it is the former, many of us would find it difficult to support. If it is the latter, some of us would be sympathetic towards what the Deputy Leader of the House is saying.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure that I can add much to what I said earlier, other than that this is about providing an order-making power to a Minister to enable the inclusion of special advisers in the terms of the third-party register at some point in the future, which could be the day after Royal Assent, if that was desired. We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but my initial suspicion was nevertheless valid. It was a point of great interest and it is on the record, but it was not a point of order. Never mind—he has made it.
Tom Brake
I need to make some progress, as we do not have much time for the debate.
We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them. We should provide the public with relevant and useful information, not overwhelm them with huge volumes of unhelpful and extraneous data. The House accepted these arguments in our debates on part 1, and did not seek to extend the scope of the measure in the manner proposed by hon. Members. We should respond to the Lords amendments constructively by proposing an amendment in lieu in respect of the proposed extension to capture special advisers, but we should not seek further to extend the scope in a manner that the Lords have specifically rejected.
Briefly, Lords amendments 2 and 3 deal with recipients of communications. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to clarify and provide greater consistency in the terminology used in relation both to the recipients of the lobbying communications and to the communications themselves. Lords amendment 4 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the term, “Minister of the Crown” does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the two bodies of persons, the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are
“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.
The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both those entities, however, are bodies of persons with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, the Lords amendments remove those bodies from the definition, and in doing so provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.
Lords amendments 5, 6 and 7 deal with the code of conduct. In Committee in both Houses, the Opposition tabled amendments that required lobbyists to sign up to a statutory code of conduct and face sanctions for any breaches. As we exposed during the debates in both Houses, the Opposition’s amendments were based on a miscomprehension of the role of codes, both statutory and voluntary, in the regulation of lobbying. While the Opposition suggested that such codes are in existence and operate successfully in other jurisdictions, we have not been able to identify any international precedent for the type of code that has been proposed. Furthermore, the Opposition could propose just one provision for inclusion in that code: a prohibition on inappropriate financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians, which is unnecessary, given the fact that there are parliamentary codes, as well as laws, on bribery and corruption. Once the shortcomings of the Opposition’s amendments were demonstrated, both Houses were able confidently to reject them.
My Lords—not my Lords—the objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not anticipate a sudden transformation of the House into the other place.
The objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. During the debates, however, the Government heard calls from both Houses on the importance of ensuring that the statutory register complemented the existing self-regulatory regime. That reiterated the message of inquiries by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The self-regulatory regime is the mechanism by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. We are grateful to Members in both Houses for their thoughtful suggestions as to how we can best ensure that the register complements the regime and, after careful consideration and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of that sector, is absolutely correct. She shares my bewilderment at the Government’s target in the Bill.
As Lord Tyler made clear when the Bill was considered in another place,
“two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament… would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 29.]
There are 98 special advisers across Whitehall but, as we have learnt through the dialogue with the Deputy Leader of the House today, there are many others who are considered to be advisers and are, like special advisers, the first, if not the only, port of call for lobbyists. As was said earlier, the process of arriving at decision making matters as much as the decision itself.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that, unlike the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when they were in opposition, we publish details of meetings on a regular basis. In fact, we are the most transparent Opposition ever. I find it absolutely astonishing that, three and a half years after the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to shine a spotlight on the shadowy world of lobbying, the Government have climbed down on all the measures that we have been urging them to accept and the only thing that they can do is challenge us on our shadow ministerial diaries. The Deputy Leader of the House’s own argument was that the Government are responsible for making decisions. My point to him is that the Government are responsible for making decisions, and for the process by which they are made. We would like the measures that we have proposed to be put into the Bill. We can still see no good reason why the Government are resisting those calls.
The issue of special advisers is so important to the House because of the decision that we are being asked to make in less than an hour. I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a series of questions that I have come up with in the last two hours, since the Government decided to table their somewhat bizarre and obscure amendments. First—I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—what is the difference between what they have tabled and the amendment proposed in the other place? The answer to my hon. Friend appeared to be that the Government are simply kicking it into the long grass. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that that is the case? Is this a guarantee that it will happen? The Government amendment states that the Government “may amend regulations”. Why use “may”?
The Deputy Leader of the House said that there was a need to reach consensus. I can tell him, because, unlike the Government, I have been listening to the clamour outside this place, that there is consensus. In fact, the only people who do not appear to have reached consensus on the issue are sitting on the Government Front Bench. If he looks behind him, I think he will find that many Government Members are as concerned as we are. Are Ministers planning to introduce the proposed measure in regulation? Do they have a time frame for doing so? Why is it not being introduced now? What are the Government worried about? We urgently need to clear up the lack of understanding about the definition of special adviser.
The Government’s amendments refer to the definition in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I asked the Deputy Leader of the House whether Lynton Crosby would be covered by that. Would it cover Adam Smith, Adam Werritty or any other Government adviser who has been involved in the plethora of scandals in recent years? [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is shaking his head and muttering under his breath. I can tell him that this matters not only to Members of the House, but to people outside this place. He will know that because he will have received hundreds of e-mails about the Bill from constituents, as we all have.
My reading of the amendment is that Lynton Crosby would not be covered, because he does not adhere to the special advisers code of conduct. If that is correct, it is a disgrace. The Deputy Leader of the House, in answer to an earlier question, did not seem at all clear about who was covered by his own amendment. I am not surprised, because it was made available to us only at 11 o’clock this morning, and he expects us to vote on it shortly.
The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee asked about senior civil servants. If Ministers are conceding—I am still not sure if they are—that the requirements in the clause can be extended to special advisers, they can also be extended to senior civil servants. It is fairly obvious that permanent secretaries are rarely lobbied, whereas senior civil servants and special advisers are. Ministers do not have to believe me; they can listen to the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, Iain Anderson, who said:
“The vast majority of lobbying is not about meeting Ministers or permanent secretaries”.
The TUC, Spinwatch and other lobbyist groups have made the same point. The truth is that there is no reason at all not to support the sensible amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee.
The Prime Minister used to be fond of quoting US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps he ought to reflect on something else Mr Justice Brandeis said:
“People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.”
Are the Government afraid of challenge? Let us consider the evidence: the right to challenge cut back through legal aid restrictions, employment tribunal fees and restrictions on migrant appeal rights; an Education Secretary who is fighting the Information Commissioner tooth and nail to block information from the public domain; and a scandal involving the use of private e-mail accounts at the heart of the Department for Education. Only this week Downing street refused to reveal how many guests were hosted at Chequers. The Prime Minister released a partial list that excluded special advisers, officials and, it seems, Conservative party donors. Without the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee and the important change on special advisers made in the other place, the Bill will do absolutely nothing to increase the transparency of lobbying.
During the 47 minutes of the Deputy Leader of the House’s speech, the only reason that I could understand for why he objects to that sensible measure is his claim that it would impose additional costs and bureaucracy. I simply do not understand how the Government have the nerve to talk about costs and bureaucracy when they are placing unnecessarily restrictive, expensive and onerous burdens on charities, grass-roots campaigners and trade unions, who are the lifeblood of democratic debate in this country.
Tom Brake
I have received clarification on that point. The new type of adviser to which the hon. Gentleman is referring exists only as a recommendation in a report on civil service reform. Such advisers do not currently exist, so it is impossible definitively to confirm or deny whether they would be covered by the proposals. If the new advisers are employed on the same basis as special advisers and are therefore covered by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, they would be covered. If they are not employed on that basis, but are employed as civil servants, they would not be covered.
Mark Durkan
In what I have read, Government officials have said that the new advisers will not be special advisers—they might be specialist advisers, but they will not be special advisers. They will advise on policy. We are told by the Ministers who back the idea that it is about trying to break the logjam in Government and move policy along decisively. They will therefore have a key role in moving public policy along. It is Ministers, not Opposition Members, who are planning to have this new breed of advisers—this addition to the ecosystem of government and the networks of advice—so if the Government have not worked out what class of beast they will be, they cannot condemn the rest of us for asking and wondering. As legislators, we are meant to think forward to things that are planned and that are likely to happen.
The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has said that the reason he will not press amendment (a) to a Division is purely to afford the House time to discuss the issues in part 2 of the Bill that need to be discussed. However, I want to stress the merits of amendment (a). I hope that in future Ministers will not abuse the fact that a proposal is not being pressed to a Division out of courtesy to the Chamber because it has other serious concerns to discuss to make out that Members do not care about the issues or that the issues are not serious, as they have done today. These issues are serious. In my view, the Government have deliberately used the audacity of their proposals in part 2 as a human shield to cover the paucity and weakness of their proposals in part 1, which will apply only to those who present themselves in the Yellow Pages under the heading “Consultant Lobbyists”. People can engage in the business of professional lobbying on any other paid basis, whether it is in-house or for any of the big accountancy or legal firms, which provide all sorts of services.