Business of the House

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you and I agree that my hon. Friend should write to us both with something we can put before other members of the Commission when it first meets.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State make time available next week for an extended debate on the subject of hospitals in south-west London—a debate he might like to participate in—so that we can look at the issue of funding for St Helier hospital? As £290 million was guaranteed under the coalition Government, I want to ensure that that funding is available when plans come forward for the hospital.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman and I share an interest in this issue because we share the same NHS trust. I am concerned to make sure that both hospitals have a successful future. If he wants to raise the issue, I suggest that he looks to bring forward an Adjournment debate. I suspect that we have not ended the period of debate locally. I know that we will both continue to be champions for our own communities.

Recall of MPs Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say, as I said in my opening remarks, that these amendments are sensible modifications, ensuring that the Bill works effectively. I hope the House will support them, I am grateful for the Opposition spokesman’s comments on them and I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 7

Where and from when the recall petition may be signed

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 18.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 19, 20, 23 to 26 and 28 to 32.

[Tom Brake]

The amendments in this group relate to the way in which recall petitions will be run. They pick up on a number of points made in debates in both Houses and are designed to make improvements to the operation of the recall petitions for the benefit of constituents, administrators and campaigners. The amendments also ensure that the Electoral Commission plays a greater role in reporting on the operation of recall petitions in practice. I will describe the amendments briefly and will also address the more technical amendments that form part of this group.

Amendments 18 to 20 relate to constituents’ engagement with and access to the recall petition process. Lords amendment 18 increases the number of signing places that the petition officer can designate from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10. This amendment addresses concerns expressed during previous debates in this House and the House of Lords about accessibility for constituents living in rural areas who may wish to sign the petition in person. In setting the number at 10, we consulted the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the returning officers for the Western Isles and for Argyll and Bute. They were clear that a limit of four could pose particular challenges in large rural constituencies or in constituencies with a number of islands, and felt that a raised limit would afford them helpful flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I have listened with great interest to what the Minister has to say. Does not Lords amendment 19, which reduces the period during which the recall petition would be available for signing from eight to six weeks, make it far more likely that an MP under the recall mechanism will survive the process?

[Tom Brake]

We had to strike a balance between the number of signing places and the number of weeks that a petition was available. We felt that, following the discussions that had taken place in both Houses, the idea of providing a maximum of 10 signing places and allowing six weeks was an appropriate compromise. It is always worth reinforcing the point that postal voting is available, which makes the petition process and the recall process quite open and acceptable.

[Jonathan Edwards]

In the Minister’s opening remarks, he coupled Lords amendment 18 with Lords amendment 19. Would it not be better for Lords amendment 18 to say a “minimum” of 10 rather than a maximum of 10?

[Tom Brake]

That is a subject of debate. If the returning officer in the constituency of Argyll and Bute, which has, I think, more islands than any other constituency, felt that 10 signing places was appropriate, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which more than 10 would be required anywhere else in the country. There can always be a debate on whether that is the appropriate number. I hope that returning officers will ensure that, for their particular locality, the right number is chosen. I suspect that in my patch, if ever there were to be a recall petition in Carshalton and Wallington, two or three signing places would be the maximum required, as the constituency size is only about four by five miles. However, I have to say that such a petition will not be required in my constituency.

With these amendments, the Electoral Commission will be able to review every recall petition process to help ensure that the spending and donations rules are working in line with the principles. Lords amendment 31 corrects a minor and technical cross-reference in schedule 5 to the Bill.

I look forward to a short debate on these amendments, which I commend to the House.

[Stephen Twigg]

Let me start by apologising to the House, particularly to the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), that I was a little ahead of myself in addressing amendments 23 to 25, which are in the second grouping. I echo what the Deputy Leader of the House said by way of tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his record of work in this House. He has sought not only to work for his constituents but to reconnect the House with the public, which is an important challenge for all of us.

The second group of amendments significantly improves the original legislation. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, Lords amendment 18 would increase the number of places that the petition officer could designate in their constituency for signing the recall petition, from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10. That is welcome and should ensure that accessing a petition is not an overly difficult process for constituents. Amendment 19 would reduce the length of the period during which the recall petition is available, from eight to six weeks. We support that as it is combined with an increase in the number of signing places. Taken together, those amendments allow for easy access to the petition while giving a realistic time scale for the collection of signatures.

Lords amendment 26 is welcome. It removes the power for the Act itself to be amended by regulations. Lords amendment 32 is especially welcome and important as it requires the Electoral Commission to produce and publish a report on the recall petition process after the end of the petition period in relation to each recall petition. That is important because it enables us to learn from the process as it develops. This is a new and innovative feature of our political system. It is good that the Electoral Commission is tasked with producing and publishing such a report, so that we can learn lessons from each petition and, if necessary, make changes to improve public access to the process.

I agree that the Bill has been improved through the stages of scrutiny in this place and in the House of Lords. I believe it will play a part—probably quite a modest part—in improving the accountability of Parliament and Members of Parliament, and therefore play a small role in renewing our political institutions.

[Tom Brake]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that the amendments follow thorough scrutiny in both Houses and will improve the operation of recall petitions by encouraging participation and ensuring public confidence in the outcome. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive scrutiny of the Bill. I believe the Bill will provide our constituents with a further means of holding us to account—beyond the greater means that happen on 7 May—in the form of an additional tool that can be used where Members of Parliament have committed serious wrongdoing. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 18 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Lords amendments 19 to 32 agreed to.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move,

That Dr Julian Lewis be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under Schedule 1 to the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Mr Keith Simpson be appointed to that Committee under section 1 of that Act.

Under the terms of section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the respective House. The current vacancy for a Conservative member arises from the resignation of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The Prime Minister has nominated the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), following the required consultations with the Leader of the Opposition. The House is now being asked to make the appointment in accordance with the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I welcome the Opposition spokesman’s support for the motion and join him in congratulating the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his sterling contribution on the ISC. I know that his expertise and commitment to these matters will be missed.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

In thanking the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his comments, let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on his appointment to the Committee. We look forward to his contribution based on the experience and wisdom in these matters that he possesses.

Deregulation Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 38.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we may take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

[Tom Brake]

I want briefly to outline why the Government have introduced amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 38.

A television licence is required to watch all live or nearly live broadcast television content on any device in the UK. People should not seek to evade this and there needs to be an effective enforcement regime for the failure to have a TV licence.

Clause 76 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that a review of the TV licensing enforcement regime is carried out. This review will identify whether the current enforcement regime is appropriate and proportionate, and will ensure that there is a strong, evidence-based case for any changes to the TV licence enforcement regime. This matters a great deal to many people.

The Government are very clear that the review of the licensing enforcement regime is a high priority. The decision was taken to commence this review in advance of Royal Assent, while retaining the clause that commits the Government to carry out the review to ensure that this important piece of work is completed. The review is being led, independently, by David Perry QC. The findings of the review, which will complete by the end of June 2015, will be laid in both Houses of Parliament and be presented to the BBC Trust.

The proposed further amendment requires the Secretary of State within three months of the review reporting to set out whether the Government intend to decriminalise or not, and commits the Government to indicate clearly the timetable they plan to follow upon the completion of the Perry review. Our overriding aim is to ensure that the system is appropriate, proportionate and fair, and represents the best value.

This amendment places a firm commitment on the Government of the day to promptly and properly consider the report and set out their response and the timetable of steps to be taken, within three months of the report’s completion. Clause 77 confers a new power on the Secretary of State, via secondary legislation, to change the sanctions that apply to the failure to have a TV licence. We have always maintained that the report’s findings, and potential next steps, should be considered in the context of charter review. This position has not changed.

The BBC’s current charter expires on 31 December 2016. The Government will not begin charter review until after the election and there is no set process for how the review of the charter should be conducted, or when. It will be for the Government of the day to take forward any further actions as they see fit.

We must not make presumptions about the recommendations that Mr Perry will make, nor about how the Government will decide to take them forward, particularly as the public consultation element of this work is ongoing. Clearly, any changes will require serious consideration in the broader context of the charter review process, and it will be for the next Government to ensure that the right enforcement regime for licence fee payers, the courts and indeed the BBC itself is in place.

Our amendment ensures that the next Government will be ready and able to implement whatever recommendations David Perry, QC wishes to make, when the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power commences in April 2017. There was significant cross-party support for the TV licensing clauses during our earlier consideration of this Bill in this House. The firm commitments set out by the Government at that time must be honoured, particularly given that strong, cross-party support. Our amendments ensure that David Perry’s review will be promptly considered by the Government of the day, and that any potential changes are introduced to a clear timetable, leading up to 1 April 2017. For all the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendment and support our amendments in lieu.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Anybody would think, from the way the Minister just presented his case, that this has been a smooth path and everything the Government intended from the very beginning. But there was only an amendment relating to the licence fee at all because of a Government Back-Bencher, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—who may be able to catch your eye a little later, Madam Deputy Speaker—and we have a change only because in the Lords the Government’s position was overturned by three votes. I am, of course, proud that we now have a far more sensible set of propositions before us. I admit that the Liberal Democrat heart that is still beating within the Minister is probably on our side in this argument, but he might at least have shown that that heart still beats, rather than just deliver what his paymasters in the Conservative party have told him to deliver.

The truth is that Labour Members support the BBC licence fee for the foreseeable future, not out of ideological passion but simply because it has worked and because the vast majority of people in this country support it. Everybody comes up with other ideas; every Select Committee that has ever examined this issue has set out this, that and the other idea for us to consider, but at the end has said that the least worst option is the licence fee. Broadly speaking, that is what the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport decided in its report a couple of weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People go to prison not for not paying the licence fee, but for not paying the fines. However, if someone has hit hard times and has no money and cannot afford a £145.50 licence fee, they are unlikely, as in the example cited by Baroness Corston, to be able to pay a £200 fine, which could result in a mother going to prison and her children being taken into care, with the consequent results for her family on release.

The avoidance rate for payment of the TV licence fee in Scotland is hardly different from that in England, despite the fact that we criminalise 160,000 to 180,000 of our citizens a year and imprison between 30 and 50, whereas Scotland prosecutes only some 30 people a year. Given the sparsity of population in Scotland and human behaviour being what it is, one might consider that there would be a greater chance of evading prosecution in a remote part of Scotland than anywhere in England. I would suggest that there was possibly a higher evasion rate in Scotland prior to the decriminalisation anyway.

Unfortunately, the BBC public relations machine seems to have won the day in the upper House, so I now come to amendment (a) in lieu, tabled in the name of the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin). As he says, there is no doubting the significant cross-party support for the clauses relating to TV licensing during the earlier stages of the Bill, and the firm commitments set out by the Government must be honoured. I therefore support the amendment to ensure that the review by David Perry QC, due in June 2015, to which I had the pleasure of giving evidence only last week, is promptly considered by the Government of the day, and that the changes that I very much hope come about are introduced with a clear timetable.

Whatever future funding mechanism for the BBC is decided at the next charter review, I hope that criminalising more than 160,000 of our fellow citizens each year, an estimated 75% of whom are women, will no longer be part of it. I therefore urge the House to join me in opposing the Lords amendment and supporting the Government’s amendments in lieu.

[Tom Brake]

I will make a few short comments in relation to the points that have been made in the debate. It is impossible to win with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). If we do not make any changes to the Bill, we are being dictatorial and steamrolling things through. If we do make changes in response to the debate, we are being spineless. As a Minister, I am always in favour of listening, and if there are ways of improving a Bill, that is what I like to do—and that is what we are doing today.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is the ideal Opposition spokesman? I hope he stays in opposition for a long time.

[Tom Brake]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that, and I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will stay on the Opposition Benches for a long time. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support in a roundabout way, and in a lengthier contribution than mine on this measure.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for providing us with the opportunity to debate TV licensing and enforcement today, a debate he initiated many months ago. I hear the unhappiness that he has expressed, but I also heard him comment positively on the fact that there is a clear commitment from any future Government, providing the Bill is passed, to come forward within three months of the publication of the Perry review with an action plan setting out the steps that they will take if they are in favour of decriminalisation.

Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 38.

Clause 1

Health and safety at work: general duty of self-employed persons

[Tom Brake]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 17.

Lords amendment 18, and amendments (a) to (g) thereto.

Lords amendment 19, and amendments (b), (e), (c) and (d) thereto.

Lords amendment 20.

Lords amendment 21, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 22 to 25.

Lords amendment 26, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 27, and amendments (a) to (k) thereto.

Lords amendments 28 to 37 and 39 to 123.

[Tom Brake]

It seems a long time since I was sitting opposite the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) debating the Deregulation Bill, but we are back here today. The Government support Lords amendments 1 to 37 and 39 to 123. I will also be speaking to amendments tabled by hon. Members to Lords amendments 19, 21, 26 and 27, which the Government will not be supporting for reasons that I will set out shortly.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 relate to health and safety and the self-employed. Lords amendment 1 addresses concerns raised during the public consultation on draft regulations conducted by the Health and Safety Executive during July and August 2014. Concerns were expressed that the regulations as drafted could lead to some self-employed persons who do pose a risk to the health and safety of others falling exempt from the law. Amendment 1 sets out the ways in which undertakings may be described in regulations made under section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to retain duties on self-employed persons. Subsection (2A)(a) provided for regulations to include descriptions of activities carried out by an undertaking where the duty on the self-employed would remain in place, essentially providing for a list of high-risk activities. Importantly, subsection (2A)(b) ensures that the regulations can also include a general description covering any undertaking the conduct of which may expose others to risks to their health and safety. The amendment means that the provision in the Bill aligns more with Professor Ragnar Löfstedt’s recommendation. The HSE will produce guidance targeted at self-employed persons and others to assist with their understanding of the amendment.

Lords amendment 2 takes into account a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to change the parliamentary procedure for these regulations from negative to affirmative. This will allow Parliament fully to scrutinise the regulations.

Lords amendment 3 removes a measure that would have had the effect of allowing private hire vehicles to be used for leisure purposes when they were not being used for private hire purposes. After listening to concerns about this proposal during the Bill’s passage, the Government have decided that the best course of action is for this measure to be considered as part of the package of measures recommended by the Law Commission to reform taxi and private hire vehicle licensing.

Lords amendments 5 to 17 seek to provide clarification and certainty in relation to the tenancy deposit protection legislation in response to recent court cases. The amendments address two issues. First, they make it clear that, where appropriate, a letting agent’s contact details, instead of the landlord’s, may be provided to a tenant. That was always the intention of the original framework, and thus the measure has been made to apply retrospectively. However, to ensure fairness, provision is also being made to prevent the reopening of out-of-court settlements or court cases that had been finally determined on this basis.

The second issue, which was raised by the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Charalambous v. Ng 2014, concerns tenancy deposits. The Court ruled that the tenancy deposit legislation should apply to landlords who received a tenancy deposit before the coming into force of the tenancy deposit legislation in 2007, and that they would therefore need to protect deposits if they wished to rely on the “no fault” ground for eviction, known as section 21. This was never the Government’s intention. Our amendments therefore make it absolutely clear that, although landlords affected by the judgment will need to protect deposits if they wish to rely on section 21, they will not be at risk of financial penalty should they fail to do so.

Lords amendments 18 to 26 protect tenants in the private rented sector from being evicted where they have raised a legitimate complaint about the condition of their home, and make the eviction process more straightforward in appropriate cases. They also ensure that tenants are aware of their rights and responsibilities and those of the landlord. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has tabled amendments to these amendments, and I will come to those shortly. The effect of the Government’s amendments is that landlords in the private rented sector will not be able to evict a tenant merely because the tenant has asked them to carry out a repair, provided that the local authority has confirmed that such a repair is necessary to prevent a potential risk to the tenant’s health and safety. They ensure that tenants are always given at least two months’ notice before they have to move out of their home and make the eviction process more straightforward for landlords in situations where the tenant should be evicted.

The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the information to be contained in any eviction notice served under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, and provide that an eviction notice cannot be served where a landlord has failed to comply with their existing legal obligations relating to the condition of the property, the health and safety of their tenants, or the energy performance of the property. They also require landlords to provide information to their tenants about their rights and responsibilities.

As many Members will know, these amendments started as a private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), whom I thank for all her work in bringing this to the attention of the House. I also thank the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; the Minister for Employment; and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). Shelter and Citizens Advice have also been heavily involved in this process.

Retaliatory eviction is wrong, and its continued practice is unacceptable. No tenant should face eviction because they have made a legitimate complaint to the landlord about the condition of their home, and no decent landlord would engage in the practice. However, a small number of rogue and unscrupulous landlords think it is perfectly acceptable to evict a tenant for requesting a repair. These important amendments introduce protection for tenants against rogue and unscrupulous landlords, but they also contain provisions that will benefit landlords and make it more straightforward to evict tenants in legitimate circumstances.

On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley, I understand the intention behind some of them. However, I assure him that Lords amendments 18 to 26 ensure that all landlords are still entitled to their rights under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which enables them to evict a tenant who does not pay rent, goes to prison, or uses the house for illegal purposes. Our fundamental aim is to prevent a very small minority of rogue landlords from evicting tenants in retaliation for raising a legitimate complaint. Part of his proposals would undermine this effort.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Minister answer two questions? First, is the opposition to my amendments unanimous across the coalition, or is it just the Liberal Democrats who oppose them? Secondly, what estimate have the Government made of the number of revenge evictions that take place each year, because there is great discrepancy in the numbers?

[Tom Brake]

On the number of revenge evictions, I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman; I may get inspiration in the next few minutes. On whether there was coalition agreement on this issue, when the Department for Communities and Local Government looked at the impact of his amendments, it was clear that, in some cases, they would allow a landlord to make a retaliatory eviction on the day after the landlord had completed a repair. That would go completely against the intent of the provisions in terms of protecting tenants. It would permit a landlord to evict a tenant as soon as repairs had been completed using a section 21 eviction notice. That is not in the spirit of preventing retaliatory evictions, but merely delays them until after repairs are completed.

On the number of revenge evictions, as the hon. Gentleman will probably know, the figure is estimated to be some 80,000 per year. The source of that figure was a YouGov survey of 4,500 renters.

[Philip Davies]

Rubbish!

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Even if the hon. Gentleman feels that the figure is rubbish and it is perhaps half that, 40,000 retaliatory evictions per year is still a very large number.

[Philip Davies]

Why are the Government basing their figures on an opinion poll commissioned by a campaigning charity on this issue and ignoring their own figures from the English housing survey, which estimates that the number is about 6,000 a year?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. He thinks that the figure is lower, at 6,000 evictions. I said 80,000, and then generously halved it for him to 40,000. If it is indeed 6,000, then that is 6,000 retaliatory evictions too many. His amendments would facilitate the process of retaliatory evictions, which the Government are, instead, seeking to avoid.

The amendments would extend the time within which a landlord must respond to a request for a repair from 14 days to 20 working days. This Government believe that renting out a property is a business and that tenants should be able to expect a much swifter response to a complaint than 20 working days—in other words, a month—particularly where the problem is serious. To clarify, this time frame is only for responding to the concern raised, not fixing the problem. There is a further amendment to the effect that any complaint must be within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, that legislation is not the framework under which local authorities operate for the purposes of inspecting a property and deciding whether there is a health and safety risk to the tenant. Inspections are carried out under the Housing Act 2004 and involve checking for the presence of 29 potential hazards in the home.

Amendment 5 would remove protection against retaliatory eviction where a landlord intends to sell the property within six months. However, the proposed legislation already provides that it does not apply where, at the time when the section 21 eviction was served, the property was generally on the market for sale.

The next amendment would provide that protection against retaliatory eviction does not apply where a landlord wants to move into or redevelop the dwelling, or the dwelling is subject to a compulsory purchase order, or the landlord needs vacant possession to comply with a legal duty to carry out works in the building. Compulsory purchase orders are rarely used, but even where they are, the acquiring authority would become the landlord and could terminate the lease under separate powers.

The final amendment would introduce a five-year time limit on the life of the legislation or require that a review shall be commissioned within three years of the legislation coming into force. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is standard practice to evaluate legislation after a certain period, and we will of course do this. However, we do not necessarily believe that the issue of retaliatory evictions will be resolved in five years, so we do not want to limit the powers as they stand.

Where a landlord wants to move back into a property that they are renting out, the legislation will not prevent them from doing so, provided that they follow the normal process and deal with any repairs before a local authority becomes involved. The legislation contains safeguards to ensure that a tenant cannot benefit from making spurious or unfounded complaints. A complaint in itself will not be enough to trigger protection against retaliatory eviction. In all cases, the local authority will have to confirm that a repair needs to be carried out and that failure to do so would probably involve a serious health and safety risk to the tenant. In addition, the legislation makes it clear that a tenant cannot claim protection against retaliatory eviction where they have failed to treat the property in a tenant-like manner—in other words, to take care of it, rather than to damage it wilfully and negligently—including by carrying out small jobs around the property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

I hope to catch your eye later, Madame Deputy Speaker, but it is pretty clear that there is no uncertainty whatsoever. The regulations have been in place for 42 years for good reason, so to sweep them away as is now proposed would be rather unwise. I hope that the Minister will provide a little meat on the bones of exactly why the Government now wish to do so, particularly given the strength of feeling among London MPs on both sides of the House and in the Lords.

[Tom Brake]

I will provide more explanation in a few minutes. I hope that it will satisfy my hon. Friend, but I suspect that it may not. We will have to wait and see. One point is that this is an issue only in London. I am not aware of a huge number of problems associated with it outside London. Perhaps there are such problems, but they certainly have not been drawn to my attention. The proposals will simply bring the approach in London into line with that in the rest of the country.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I did not quite follow the Minister’s argument. He accepted the fact that London is different and that there is strong feeling about it in London, but he proceeded to say that the Government therefore want to make London like the rest of the country. I am afraid that that is a non sequitur. If there is a problem in London, the Government must address it by accepting it and listening to the views of the local authorities and others in London who have clear experience of it and are saying that what the Government propose is wrong.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing me. What I should have said is that I am hearing the concerns about London expressed in this debate, but there are no restrictions of such a nature and I am not aware of its causing a significant issue outside London. I will come on to explain why the Government support the proposals and why we believe that the safeguards, which I am sure he wants, are sufficient to deal with any concerns of London MPs.

At present, Londoners would be in breach of section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 were they to use their residential premises as temporary sleeping accommodation without planning permission, because the Act stipulates that letting a residential property for less than 90 consecutive nights is a material change of use and thus requires planning permission. Not obtaining such permission means risking a fine of £20,000.

The Government published a policy paper on the short-term use of residential property on 9 February. It takes into account the representations we received following the publication last year of the discussion document on property conditions in the private rented sector, as well as our discussions with London local authorities, the industry and Members of both Houses.

Following that, the Government tabled a number of amendments in the other place to update the existing legislation and ensure that we provide appropriate freedom for London residents, broadly in line with that enjoyed by residents across the rest of the country. Alongside the new freedoms, we have sought to provide important safeguards to prevent the abuse of the reforms and, crucially, to prevent any opportunity for commercial letting on an ongoing or permanent basis, about which I am sure Labour Members are concerned.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I, too, hope to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is a London MP, so he knows the pressures on the residential housing stock in London. Have not London local authorities, across the parties, made representations to stress that fact? For example, Westminster alone loses about 500 residential units every year to short-term lettings, because it is impossible to distinguish, in the way the Minister claims to do, between the holiday let and the extension of what is effectively the hospitality industry.

[Tom Brake]

The Government are clear that the proposals are not about facilitating a process that will allow more commercial letting on an ongoing or permanent basis; they are about restricting lets by individuals to a maximum of 90 days. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has ever used Airbnb or something of that nature in other parts of the country, where people let out their properties on a short-term basis at the time of particular events, such as the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow. There is no suggestion that people are letting out properties permanently. The Government do not want that to happen, which is why the restriction of 90 days has been put in place. I will come on to the other safeguards in a moment.

[Ms Buck]

I will not intervene again, but may I ask about that particular point? The Minister is saying that there is not a problem, but Westminster alone has had to take 7,362 cases against quasi-commercial short-term lettings in the past 15 years even under the existing regulations. The key point is that such enforcement will be far harder when the Government relax the rules, as they intend to do.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady will hear what I have to say about enforcement notices, and she may want to pick that up among the points she will make should she catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The internet has created new opportunities for residents who want to enter into what has become known as the sharing economy, a catch-all term encompassing all asset owners who wish to share their asset with others in exchange for a fee. As a result, it is now easier than ever for residents to rent out their property to supplement their incomes and offer consumers new experiences. A cursory look at some of the websites facilitating such lettings reveals that thousands of London properties and rooms are available for short-term use, all of which potentially violate the current section 25.

Lords amendments 27 to 30 add additional safeguards in relation to the short-term use of London properties without planning permission in three ways. First, they stipulate that a property can be used as temporary sleeping accommodation only for a maximum of 90 nights per calendar year. That will ensure that the reforms provide residents with greater flexibility, but it will not create opportunities for the short-term letting of properties on a permanent basis. Secondly, they provide that the person providing the temporary sleeping accommodation must be liable for council tax. That requirement means that a property is used as a residence, because a property used as a hotel or hostel would be liable for business rates. Combined with the 90-night per calendar year limit, we believe that this provides an appropriate safeguard against short-term letting on an ongoing or permanent basis. Thirdly, they allow either the Secretary of State or the relevant planning authority with the Secretary of State’s consent to direct, where there is a strong amenity case for doing so, that the relaxation of section 25 does not apply to certain properties in certain areas. I hope that addresses the hon. Lady’s concerns.

[Mark Field]

Let us try to dig a little into precisely how big that concession is. Would the Minister allow local authorities, particularly those in central London, to exempt themselves from the exemptions in the entirety of their area—in other words, to tie themselves again to the 1973 Act—or is he suggesting that the concession would apply only to very limited stress areas?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening carefully. I said that the Secretary of State would have to give consent. The Government are not proposing that local authorities should be allowed to decide unilaterally which areas are in and which are out. We want to facilitate something that is already clearly happening on a large scale in London—as far as I am aware, it happens elsewhere in the country without significant problems—to give individuals the flexibility to allow their properties to be rented on a short-term basis if there is an event, such as Wimbledon, during which they want to absent themselves.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister mentions Wimbledon and I have no doubt that he is also thinking about things such as holiday lets. How many prosecutions have there been in respect of Wimbledon and holiday lets? The proposal is just about commercial lets. Is it not impossible to regulate such things in the way the Government intend? It is over-regulation to say that councils must apply for a waiver. Why does he not let localism take charge and allow local authorities decide for themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Clearly there is a localism aspect to the proposal. If, as some Opposition Members are saying, there is a significant issue in Westminster and places like it, I am sure that Westminster city council will present a well-argued case to the Secretary of State to say why it believes that there should be an exemption in a particular location. I am sure that the Secretary of State would consider such an approach carefully.

The Government believe that the Lords amendments provide appropriate flexibility for Londoners alongside sufficient safeguards. The 90-night limit, coupled with the requirement for hosts to be liable for council tax, means that we will not create new opportunities for residential properties to be used as temporary sleeping accommodation on a permanent basis without planning permission. The relaxation of section 25 will allow properties to be used more efficiently when residents are away, and it should not remove properties from the housing stock that is available to Londoners and their families. In the Government’s opinion, the safeguards, coupled with the ability to exempt areas with the consent of the Secretary of State, are sufficient to protect Londoners against any potential abuse of the relaxation of section 25.

The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment 27 principally seek to create the additional condition that residential premises can be used as temporary sleeping accommodation without planning permission, provided that the premises are the principal residence in London of the owner. They would require the provider of temporary sleeping accommodation to notify the local planning authority in advance of every occasion on which they intended to use their property in this way on a short-term basis. I wonder whether any assessment has been made of the impact of that proposal on the existing London market, with regard to people who are already in breach of the law, and of the burden on local authorities in handing all the advance requests. The Opposition amendments would also remove the requirement for the local planning authority to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to direct that the new flexibility does not apply to particular residential premises or premises in particular areas.

The Government believe that the Opposition amendments seek to remedy issues that have already been addressed by the amendments the Government made in the other place. They would place additional burdens on London residents that are not experienced by residents in other parts of the country, and they run counter to the spirit of the legislation as a deregulatory Bill.

We know that short-term letting is already taking place in London, but the current legislation has led to confusion and uncertainty for potential hosts. The Government amendments will provide clarity and give London residents the confidence that they can use their property as temporary sleeping accommodation within the law, without the disproportionate bureaucracy of applying for planning permission. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central not to press the Opposition amendments.

I will finish fairly soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am afraid that the amendments touch on a wide range of issues. Lords amendments 31 and 32 change the parliamentary approval procedure for the establishment of urban development areas and urban development corporations. They contain a sunset provision with an expiry date of 31 March 2016. On expiry, the process to establish any further urban development areas and corporations will revert to the existing affirmative procedure. These amendments are intended to help us quickly to establish the urban development corporation for Ebbsfleet —a subject that was debated in the House recently.

Lords amendment 33 inserts new section 220A in the Housing Act 1996, which will give the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance when advice is provided in connection with the law concerning park homes. Financial assistance may be provided when an organisation provides information, training or advice, or a dispute resolution service concerning residential licences in England. Where appropriate, the money may be recovered from the recipient. There are similar powers to provide funding to organisations that provide legal advice on residential tenancies. The amendment simply provides the Secretary of State with a similar funding power in respect of residential licences.

Lords amendments 34 and 82 will enable and empower NHS ambulance services to respond to medical emergencies quickly and effectively. There are statutory provisions that exempt vehicles from various rules contained in road traffic legislation when they are being used by the emergency services for fire, police and ambulance purposes. However, modern practices and technology have outgrown the current law, which mainly uses the term “ambulance”. NHS ambulance services now use fast response units including cars and motorbikes to provide quick responses to the most critically ill patients, where time is of the essence. They also use larger vehicles to transport equipment to major incidents to ensure that clinicians are properly equipped. Such responses provide a vital part of NHS emergency health care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Opposition welcome many of the Lords amendments. It has been an 18-month process to bring the Bill to this stage, and it has been much improved by the scrutiny brought to bear not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and other hon. Members who had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee opposite the Minister, but in the other place where a great deal of cross-party and constructive work was done. This will not be a case study in how to make laws—much of it is ill considered and there has been a lack of consultation about many of the proposals—but it may in future become a case study for how Members of the House can work together despite the Government, and particularly with the support of Members in the other place, to make better law.

We welcome Lords amendments 1 and 2. The changes will certainly improve clause 1 although we still believe that it is unnecessary, ineffective and confusing. We have opposed the clause in all its guises from the very beginning. It is clear that this is an ideologically driven attack on health and safety and will have a negligible impact on the self-employed—those whom the Government say they will help. We think that the clause could create confusion where there has been clarity in the law for more than 40 years, and at no stage was any real evidence brought forward to support any of the proposed benefits of the changes.

We have heard how some small businesses and self-employed people may benefit, but that will clearly be at the cost of creating confusion for millions of self-employed people in a variety of sectors and in some dangerous occupations. That contributes to a narrative that health and safety is inherently a bad thing, rather than something that makes our economy more competitive and a safer place to work. I shall be part of work around the country led by the GMB and other trade unions—it is international workers memorial day in a few weeks’ time, and we will recognise the huge progress we have made in this country to keep people safe at work. I regret that the Government are now seeking to undermine that progress.

I will not repeat the lengthy arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in Committee, or those made by Lord McKenzie of Luton in the other place, but I will say that this clause—and indeed the Bill as a whole—has benefited from scrutiny, even though we believe it is largely unnecessary. Concessions were won in the House of Lords and improvements made to the Bill generally without any support from the Liberal Democrats in either House. They argue that they are a moderating influence that improves the actions of the Government, but the Bill shows that they have failed in that respect.

Amendment 10 is a welcome U-turn from the Government on the proposal to let anyone behind the wheels of a minicab. For the past year Labour has opposed the Government’s proposals to reform minicab law because we believe that they will put passengers at risk. Taxi and private hire vehicle regulation is complex, and we recognise the arguments that it is outdated. Nevertheless, these reforms are not the right ones.

The regulation and licensing of types of vehicles and their drivers is undertaken by local authorities across England and Wales, except in London. In 2011 the Department for Transport requested that the Law Commission undertake a comprehensive review of taxi and minicab law, aiming to modernise and simplify it. The Government delayed the publication of the Law Commission’s report, and instead proposed three amendments to the Bill on minicab regulation in March 2013, seeking to meet the so-called red tape challenge to scrap legislation. The informal consultation that the Government claimed to have carried out was not public but apparently sent privately by a civil servant to a limited number of select bodies who were given just 10 days to respond on such an important issue. That inadequate consultation process was strongly criticised by those involved and—more importantly—all those who were not involved, including local authorities and safety campaigners. No impact assessment for the reforms has ever been produced.

In May 2013 after the local elections the Government allowed the Law Commission to publish its proposals for reform, which included a new national framework of safety and standards enforced at local level. Many organisations, including the National Private Hire Association, Unite, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the National Taxi Association, the Institute of Licensing Officers and the Local Government Association stated that the Government’s proposals would undermine the Law Commission’s reforms, result in further complications in the law rather than less red tape, and put passengers at risk.

The most controversial proposal was to enable people who do not hold a private hire vehicle licence to drive one when it is “off duty”. Safety campaigners, including the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid, police and crime commissioners of all parties, and councillors, joined Labour to warn that the measure threatened to increase the number of unlicensed drivers pretending to be legitimate, as enforcement against the illegal use of licensed vehicles will be almost impossible. The provision also threatens to put vulnerable people such as women and young girls at increased risk from rogue taxi and minicab drivers.

The Government eventually produced a form of impact assessment—although clearly it was not compelling to hon. Friends in either House—on 1 October 2014. It was signed by Baroness Kramer and confirmed that letting anyone drive a minicab

“could lead to an increase in illegal use of licensed vehicles.”

In respect of private hire vehicles and taxis the Bill has been a complete mess. We are pleased that the Government U-turned on the proposal and that today they have finally dropped it.

Like safety campaigners, the National Union of Students and others, we are still concerned about clauses 10 and 11. Clause 10 will end mandatory annual licensing checks, enabling minicab operators to subcontract bookings to firms in other areas, which I think is worrying. Some 80% of women polled by the LGA said that they would be concerned if they booked a journey with one firm and another company turned up. I completely understand that.

[Tom Brake]

The alternative is that when the vulnerable women the hon. Gentleman refers to call a taxi firm, if it is not able to subcontract the fare it will simply say “We cannot take your job”. Is that better?

[Andy Sawford]

The taxi and private hire vehicle marketplace is increasingly competitive, and users of those vehicles are well used to looking—usually on a smartphone or some other device—for another company to use. Firms often recommend other firms and companies, which provides some assurance to someone who has booked a taxi—[Interruption.] The Minister should listen because it is a shame that having dropped some of the proposals he is not listening to the concerns of safety campaigners. Eight out of 10 women surveyed said that they would not feel safe getting into a taxi from a company that they had not booked or contacted. I completely understand that and am surprised that the Minister cannot.

[Tom Brake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Andy Sawford]

The Minister did speak for 38 minutes, but I will give way.

[Tom Brake]

I also took some interventions. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether all those private hire companies are licensed and subject to security vetting?

[Andy Sawford]

The Opposition think it is important that local authorities take seriously their responsibility to license private hire vehicles, and we are not seeking to undermine the existing framework that provides assurance to people who are booking taxis and private hire companies, as clauses 10 and 11 will.

Safety concerns have been raised considerably since the inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, which concluded that one of the common threads running through child sexual exploitation across England has been the prominent role of taxi drivers in being linked to children who were abused. The author of the report, Alexis Jay OBE, has warned against any further deregulation in that area. Given that the Government accepted the recommendations of that inquiry, we are surprised that the Minister has not listened to the concerns that are out there.

The Home Secretary has promised a joined-up safeguarding approach in response to Rotherham, and we have now heard about cases elsewhere in the country, including the disturbing report that came out last week about Oxfordshire. How do these proposals, particularly those in clauses 10 and 11, relate to that promise to join up safeguarding? I want to quote an old friend of mine and a very respected figure in local government, Councillor Ann Lucas, the chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board. She has campaigned to keep women and girls safe from violence, and she has stated:

“Keeping children safe is our top priority and a responsibility councils take extremely seriously. It is imperative that the Government withdraws these plans so councils can continue to fully check everyone getting behind the wheel of a taxi or private hire vehicle to ensure vulnerable children are kept as safe as possible.”

We are pleased to see the back of this provision today, but we are disappointed that the Government have not fully listened to the concerns that have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to most, if not all of the points raised in this informed and passionate debate about some of the matters in the Bill.

In response to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), the Government do not believe that health and safety measures are bad. Clearly, when they are appropriate, the Government support them. We are pleased, and welcome the fact, that the Health and Safety Executive has recently, very vocally, pointed out to some organisations how badly they are interpreting health and safety rules in using them as an excuse not to allow things to happen.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time on the issue of private hire and subcontracting. If he feels that it is safer for a person who approaches a private hire operator who says, “Sorry, I can’t help you”, because they cannot subcontract it, then to go off and look online for an alternative provider, he is entitled to that view. I think that safety is actually enhanced by a contractor in an area having a relationship with another subcontractor who can work in another area. The hon. Gentleman called for precisely that—a relationship between the different providers—and that is probably a better guarantee of safety than someone simply looking online for people to do a job in the area. All such firms must be licensed, which also provides a safeguard for those seeking to travel in that way.

The hon. Gentleman referred to his party’s policy of introducing rent caps or rent controls. [Interruption.] He did, I believe. We can look at Hansard, but I think he used the term “rent caps”. The evidence is very clear that such caps lead to a reduction in the number of private rented properties, which I am sure is not what he is seeking.

Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman thought that local authorities should be able to decide whether certain areas should be exempted. In the Government’s view, that would introduce inconsistencies in that different rules would apply in different parts of London; our proposals will provide consistency and be easier for people to understand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about how insurance for whole blocks may become invalid. If he has such examples, I would certainly like to see them. Our view is that the reforms only affect the requirement for planning permission; they do not have any impact on insurance polices and tenancy agreements. If he can supply me with any examples, I will be happy to look at them.

My hon. Friend referred to Home Office concerns about the change from people staying in hotels to their staying in short-term lets, making it harder for the security services to monitor their activities, but that is clearly happening already. It will not happen as a result of our changes; it is already happening on quite a large scale in London, as other hon. Members have said. If the security services have identified such an issue, they will have called on the Home Office to take action. I am sure that the Home Office would respond positively to any such requests, but I am not aware of any.

Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend asked whether local authorities could choose to exempt particular areas in relation to private lettings. As I have said, that is not our view. We want to provide local authorities with the ability to approach the Secretary of State if the amenity of a particular locality is affected, and we expect them to do so.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister elaborate on that point? Once the legislation has gone through, will local authorities be able to submit a bid to designate an area, or do they have to wait for problems to arise before making a submission?

[Tom Brake]

The honest answer is that we do not yet have such details, but they will be set out in regulations. I assume that a local authority would have to provide examples, such as a consistent pattern of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour in an area, in a letter or submission for the Secretary of State to consider. The exemption will apply to a locality; Westminster could not apply for an exemption for the whole of the area covered by the council.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) spoke about the proposal to make people report it to the local authority every time they let property on a short-term basis. I want to understand better the purpose behind that and how it would work in practice. What enforcement would there be if people did not report it? An individual who was going to rent out their property for a week would be very unlikely to do so. How would she ensure that it was done? What action would be taken against people who did not comply, given that short-term lets are already happening on a large scale in London and people are not taking notice of the existing law?

[Ms Buck]

The Minister has just conceded that he does not know how the system will work and that we will have to wait for the regulations. We will look at the exact operation at that time. Westminster city council has looked at this matter closely and is confident that it could have a simple online reporting system that would allow people to notify the local authority that they intended to have a short-term let, and that that could be matched up with the data on properties that were being advertised. That would enable the local authority to target enforcement against the properties that we are all saying we are concerned about—not the one-off short holiday lets, but the extensive commercial lettings that are permeating our residential neighbourhoods.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for expanding on how the proposal would work. However efficient Westminster city council is, there will be huge difficulties in identifying the people who are advertising short-term lets on websites and making a link with the local authority register where those who are doing it properly have registered.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government’s proposals will remove the ability of local authorities to take enforcement action against illegal short-term letting. Clearly, if there is a breach, people will be at risk of planning enforcement action by their local authority. Although we want the legislation to remain light touch, we want to send the strong signal that in order to let property on a short-term basis legally, people must remain within the 90-night limit, otherwise local authorities will take enforcement action against them.

[Ms Buck]

How?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I assume that local authorities will be provided with the information—the hon. Lady and other Members have said in this debate that this is already happening on a large scale—and take the appropriate action. She referred to an explosion in the number of adverts for such letting. We are not aware that that has happened since the reforms were introduced. I understand her concerns, but the safeguards are in place to address them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for saying that he will not press his amendments to a vote. Like him, I recognise that there are good and bad landlords. There are also good and bad tenants. No doubt the good landlord and the bad tenant and the bad landlord and the good tenant sometimes go to his surgery, as they come to mine, although not usually at the same time, to report each other to their Member of Parliament.

My hon. Friend referred to the 80,000 figure that I quoted for retaliatory evictions as “fantasy” figures. He prefers his figure of 6,000. I understand that the English housing survey does not give figures on retaliatory eviction, but just talks about the fact that 9% of tenancies are ended by the landlord. As I understand it, that does not provide the clarity that he wants on the numbers.

My hon. Friend said that the Government’s proposal is not deregulatory. Of course, we have made it easier for landlords to evict through the use of standard pro forma notices and by no longer requiring that the notice given in relation to a periodic assured shorthold tenancy ends on the last day of a period of the tenancy. Therefore, there are deregulatory measures, although I accept that there are also measures that do not fall into that category.

Many of my hon. Friend’s amendments are covered in other legislation and so are not necessary. There will be a review of the legislation. That is automatic with legislation that is passed though this House.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) asked about short-term lettings and how many prosecutions there have been, but that is a matter for local authorities and we do not have that information to hand. He asserts that what the Government propose would be of no benefit to private owners. I would ask him—unfortunately time does not allow—to expand on how he knows that it would not benefit private owners, given that many people use—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak for a second time in this short debate. Having spoken for 35 minutes at the beginning of the debate, the leave of the House was for a short conclusion to the debate. So far he has taken 12 minutes, which is not a short contribution. I appreciate that he is answering many complicated questions, but I am afraid that in order to behave properly to the House, which has given him leave to speak for a second time, he ought to conclude briefly.

[Tom Brake]

Thank you for the clarity, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will conclude and I apologise that I was not able to give simple answers to the complicated questions from Opposition Members. I urge the House to accept Lords amendments 1 to 37 and 39 to 123, and to reject the amendments to the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 26 agreed to.

Amendment (g) proposed to Lords amendment 27.—(Andy Sawford.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Digital Democracy

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend seems to be able to read my mind, because that is what we were seeking to get across as a commission. We had a number of very interesting discussions, in public and, as a commission, privately, about how we encourage real dialogue. One way to do that—this is an area that I particularly want to cover—is by opening up parliamentary information. Open data are a real resource that could be used to make Parliament much more accessible, so that people out there can follow their issues and lobby effectively their MPs and, over time, the Government on them.

Let me use the example of something that has over time been an issue in my constituency—dangerous dogs. That issue has upset and worried a number of my constituents, but currently, if a member of the public wanted to find out where it was being discussed in Parliament, what laws had been passed and which Members of Parliament were actively interested in the subject, it would take a lot of digging through clunky information to try to find that out. No wonder the lobbying companies become intermediaries between the people and this place. That is because it is a full-time job to find out something as simple as what Parliament is doing to tackle dangerous dogs.

However, if we had open data, which is what we are seeking—the House of Commons is certainly doing this and we are pretty sure that the Lords will follow swiftly—that would allow tech experts, such as the many in Shoreditch in my constituency, to develop, for example, an app that meant that someone could look up a topic that mattered to them and follow through exactly where and when that was being discussed. It would possibly flag things up—this would rely on Government being co-operative about publishing an agenda, which was beyond our reach—and allow influence at the right time. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that we heard was from Clerks of this House, who said that at the point at which legislation is published, it is practically too late to make significant changes. Governments, in our system, determine legislation. We know from debates in this Chamber and from the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee that debates that happen early on and in which hon. Members can show an interest from their constituencies can and do lead to changes in the law over time, but very often, members of the public write to us just before a vote and do not get the chance really to influence the way we do our business.

Opening up data is just one example. I am sure that we can all think of examples from our own constituencies of major geopolitical decisions on which we might want to have an influence. I say to hon. Members who are sceptical about digital engagement that we might find that we enhance the work that we do by being able to listen to people with strong views, passions, interest and expertise in advance of delivering our thoughts on issues. We would be better informed as Members of Parliament about subjects that matter to our constituents. However, unless they know what is going on in this place, that will not be possible, and it is opaque.

We wanted to see Hansard, for example, in a proper open-data format. Staff in my own office use TheyWorkForYou, which I commend as a website because its algorithms, through its screen scraping—a very old-fashioned approach—give easier access to data about my voting record than I have if I try to look it up in Hansard. We wanted to see that change and we are delighted that the House of Commons is already moving along those lines. We set stiff targets for this year and next year to ensure that things happen as quickly as possible.

Very shortly, we will be able to embed digital clips of what is happening in the House of Commons in tweets, on our websites and so on. That kind of openness is really important. This is the people’s Parliament. That is what Mr Speaker firmly believes, and that is why he set up the Digital Democracy Commission—to ensure that Parliament was reaching out to the people and opening up to the people. We as MPs therefore have a duty to ensure that we are listening to the people.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could expand a little on what the commission proposed on open data, because I think that a lot of the data that she has referred to are available, albeit not very easy to find. Has she identified how that would work, in terms of a member of the public being able to find out about dangerous dogs, and has she been able to make any assessment of what the cost would be of pulling all that information together in one place for the public to access it easily?

[Meg Hillier]

I had the pleasure of attending with the hon. Member for Harlow an international conference at which we saw some very technical presentations about exact formats. I know that the House of Commons is embracing that approach. I am not the best technical expert to explain which exact format might be used, but perhaps I should lay out the current approach for the record. Websites such as TheyWorkForYou will screen scrape. They will collect data almost in a manual way from a website and then collate it, with an algorithm picking up things. That will never be perfect. That website does a good job, but it would acknowledge its own imperfections. However, if data are produced in a fully open way, in an open format, then algorithms and other mechanisms can be put in place so that information can be collected in a more intelligent and useful way for a member of the public. In effect, the intermediary stops being the lobby group and becomes the technology, but that intermediary between what is going on in this place and what the public want is much faster, sharper and snappier. Equally, it should also work the other way.

One challenge that hon. Members raised with me and, no doubt, with the hon. Member for Harlow while we were on the commission was this: “Won’t there be too many different platforms for us to use?” We will all have to address that challenge. I, for example, will be crowdsourcing which other social media platform I should be using to engage with my constituents. I hope that, through that mechanism, I will gain an idea of which one is most useful to them, rather than me alighting on a system, a social media platform, that is good for me but is not actually used by many of my constituents. It might make my life easier in some ways if I did not get interaction, but that is not what I am here for. I am here to represent my constituents, as we all are. It is important that that technological approach is taken, and certainly the House of Commons is on that track. The new head of digital has just arrived to take it forward. That that post has been created is a sign of the vision for where the House of Commons needs and wants to go.

As well as the digital side, we touched on the very big issues around improving public understanding of politics and Parliament. I think I have touched on that in what I have said, but one issue is about reducing jargon and making parliamentary language more accessible. This is an extraordinary situation. There is a member of staff in this building, working for an hon. Member, who is doing a major piece of research about the availability of “Erskine May”. Those of us in this place will know about “Erskine May”, but I would hazard a guess that most of us in the Chamber today have not seen or touched a physical copy of “Erskine May”. That is because there are very arcane rules about who has access to it and who owns it. There is a real desire— Mr Speaker has been leading the charge on this—to get it made available online, so that anyone out there who needs to look up any of the terms that we use can do that. That may sound a small step, but it is amazing that the rules of this place are held in bound hard copy, accessible to only a handful of experts. That does not help to create an open Parliament, which is one of the reasons why we wanted that to change.

We wanted to ensure that we are reaching out to under-represented groups. We touched on how to ensure that we do not leave behind those who are digitally excluded, because it is not our intention to do so. Just as with Government services that are going online, we need to be mindful of those who are unable to use that process. We see digital as enhancing and improving what we do, rather than replacing human interaction. We want to expand that human interaction to digital methods.

We wanted to look at elections and voting. A key issue internally is how we vote in Parliament. We had some interesting discussions about whether Members of Parliament should vote remotely online. The two Members of Parliament on the commission felt strongly that there was a big benefit to being in the Lobbies and being able to tackle Ministers such as the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons directly, face to face. If we lost that lobbying opportunity, we would feel that we had lost a large part of what we come to this place to do on behalf of our constituents.

The commission concluded that the current voting system is slow, clunky and manual. The House of Lords has been experimenting with using iPads to record voting. One of the benefits of recording voting digitally is that the results of a vote can be available immediately to the public and the media, whereas currently there is a time lag, because of the paper sheets that we use. I should explain for the benefit of those who are not Members of the House that as we troop through the Lobbies, there are three Clerks sitting in each Lobby with large sheets of paper and black marker pens marking off our names one by one as we go through. In the modern world, it is extraordinary that we still vote in such a way. We all have smart parliamentary passes, and it would not be difficult to install technology that allowed us to swipe through. That would enable the result to be relayed to the public quickly, so we could be held immediately to account for the way in which we had voted. I think that that makes great sense and so did the commission, so that is one of our recommendations.

We set quite stringent time targets. As the Speaker acknowledged, it would be generous to say that the House of Commons is living in the early 20th century; we are way behind in many respects. We wanted to force a drive for change and make Parliament and the House of Commons much more open and accessible. The report provides the foundations, but ultimately the public will make it happen. It requires people to be engaged and interested. When we asked the public which of the recommendations they wanted to see implemented quickly, the results were fairly evenly spread. Interestingly, online voting just pipped the others to the post as the favoured option for slightly more than 20% of those who responded to our survey.

We need tech developers to take the open data that will be available and turn it into something that will enable us to carry out our roles more effectively and enable the public to engage with us. When I am knocking on doors in Hackney on a weekend, I can talk to somebody in their kitchen, and I want to have that sort of interaction with everybody. None of us can reach everyone on the doorstep.

I want those who are passionate about an issue to be able to engage more effectively. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we get a lot of letters. They often arrive very late in the day, just as we are about to start a hearing or sometimes after a hearing. It is a great sadness to me that we have not got the capacity to absorb that information at a more appropriate stage. With the right digital support, those who are passionate will be able to get involved more effectively.

Many people are keen to get involved. Evidence from a survey carried out by Cambridge university showed that 46% of people would like to get involved if they could, but less than 10% are currently engaged with Parliament. Of course, there is a large gap between those who say they will get involved and those who actually do, but even if half of them did so, there would be a massive increase in the number of people getting involved in what we do. That would ensure that Parliament is the preserve not only of those of us who are elected, but of those who want to influence what we do.

As Members of Parliament, we need to be bold and embrace the change. We need to use social media and the opening up of Parliament as an opportunity to listen better to our constituents, not simply to broadcast what we do. If we embrace the Digital Democracy Commission report, proselytise and tell new Members about it, we will make ourselves more accountable and more relevant, and we will improve the work that we do in the House of Commons. That work is, ultimately, representing the best interests of the public and listening to their views.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for kicking off the debate. I also thank Mr Speaker for establishing the Speaker’s Digital Democracy Commission. The majority of its report’s recommendations are for Members of the House to consider and respond to, but everyone has a shared interest in many of the aims and objectives. Increasing public participation and public awareness of the role of Parliament and of MPs is a worthy aim. Of course, we are not starting at point zero. Much has been achieved in recent years as a result of the efforts of many, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I reassure the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that he never misses an opportunity to boast about the success of his Committee.

[Robert Halfon]

It is well deserved.

[Tom Brake]

Indeed.

The report contains 34 specific recommendations. I do not have time to comment on all of them individually, so I will highlight key areas, particularly those in which the Government have a lead responsibility. I will also try to address the points that Members have made on which the Government have a view.

The Speaker’s commission makes some useful recommendations about engaging the public, some of which are aimed at improving understanding of Parliament and the work of MPs. One example is simplifying language, which is something I think we would all support. I was interested in the idea that by 2020, Parliament should be understood by everybody. As an interim milestone, perhaps by 2015 Parliament could be understood by all Members of Parliament, and then we could progress to public understanding by 2020. Some clarity on precisely what “Parliament should be understood by the public by 2020” means would be helpful, because it could mean an awful lot of things to different people.

Other recommendations include clarifying online publications and improving the website, including for those with disabilities or sensory impairments. Much has been achieved in those areas already, but I am sure there is further to go. Making it easier for people to track specific areas of interest is one example of how we could improve our interaction with those who want to engage. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch set out how technology could be used to pull together the issues that people are interested in so that they could see in one place the range of contributions being made by different Members in both Houses, by Select Committees and so on. Through that, they could get a real feel for what is happening.

I am glad that the commission looked specifically at engaging the young. If we are to engage better with the public and in particular with young people, it is vital that we exploit the full range of communications channels. Although the web and social media are key mechanisms for reaching young people—I welcome the approach taken during Parliament week to focus on engaging the young in innovative and dynamic ways—there is clear evidence that taking the opportunity to visit Parliament can have a powerful impact on perceptions of our work and role. The shadow Minister outlined that when he talked about the visits enjoyed by schools from Liverpool. A visit can bring a reality to the theory that students learn.

More than 45,000 seven to 18-year-olds from across the UK visit Parliament each year via our education programmes, but such visits are heavily over-subscribed. I therefore welcome the decision by the House of Commons Commission to press forward with the creation of a dedicated education centre. That will increase capacity, giving more than 100,000 young people a year the opportunity to visit Parliament and learn about their democracy. Members will, I am sure, be aware that construction at the north end of Victoria Tower gardens commenced in September 2014. We expect to welcome the first groups to the centre in summer 2015. Votes at 16 can also help engage young people at an earlier stage in the political process and hopefully engage them thereafter when they become adults. That has been Liberal Democrat policy for many years, albeit that it is clearly not Government policy.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North referred to digital exclusion, which is a significant point. I spoke at the Wallington Evening Townswomen’s Guild, and I asked its members, “How many of you would welcome the idea of a cyber-forum where you could all go online and express your views about what the Government are doing or intend to do, or put forward your own views?” Of the 50 or so people present, one hand went up. That woman is involved in a forum that is interested in greyhounds. While we can talk about the importance of online democracy and online engagement, there is still a digital divide. I agree that the divide will probably shrink as people become more used to technology, but I still think there might be a drop-off in the number of people involved. Those of us who started off being familiar with technology—some of us might have grown up more recently, with Facebook and Twitter—will find that our children are using other things that we are not so familiar with. Even people who grew up in a technological world may reach a point where the most modern devices, apps and software exclude them.

We take digital exclusion seriously. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the provision of superfast broadband to at least 95% of UK premises by 2017, and on providing universal access to standard broadband, through Broadband Delivery UK. The Government Digital Service in the Cabinet Office is conducting research to provide a better understanding of the support requirements of the digitally excluded and assisted digital users. As part of the commitment to reducing the number of people and organisations offline, the GDS undertakes ongoing user research to understand what prevents people from going online. It has brought together 40 organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors to sign up to a UK digital inclusion charter. Work is therefore going on.

On the report’s recommendations regarding the legislative process, the Government are committed to ensuring that the legislation they put before Parliament is of a high standard, and to ensuring that Parliament has the necessary means by which to perform its scrutiny function. In April 2013, the Government launched the good law initiative, which was designed to promote law that is effective, clear and accessible. One of the best examples of that that I have seen, which I would encourage to happen more often, is the idea of a Keeling schedule, which takes a series of interlinked Acts and creates a document with all the relevant excerpts from the predecessor Acts in one place. That way, rather than trying to read across a number of different Acts, everything can be read in one document. I would like to see that idea used more effectively, because it provides clear and accessible law.

During this Parliament, various initiatives have been introduced that are designed to improve the legislative process, including the use of explanatory statements on amendments, improved explanatory notes and the piloting of public reading stages for Bills. The issue of public consultation during the Committee stage of a Bill was raised in the debate. That was used for the Health and Social Care Bill in 2011, so there are precedents for the Government providing such opportunities for the public to be engaged. The Government have also provided more time to allow proper scrutiny in Public Bill Committees and, where necessary, provided additional days on Report. There are several recommendations in the report on ideas to change the legislative process further, which will clearly be of interest to Members.

On electronic voting, the Speaker’s commission recommended that secure online voting should be an option for all voters by 2020. Making online voting available for UK elections could be attractive in the light of current advances in IT, but there remain concerns that e-voting is not sufficiently transparent or secure. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said that banking can nowadays be done by a simple click; the security measures that are in place are significantly more complex than that. There would need to be elaborate protection and security around online voting.

I conducted my own non-scientific online poll about online voting. Admittedly, it did not have a sample size comparable to those mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, but, interestingly, of the 11 people who responded out of the 232 people reached by the Facebook post—this was an online survey—seven, or 64%, said that they favoured online voting, and four said that they did not. Given that that was a sample of people who were online, and thereby excluded everyone who was not online, we must take on board the fact that a significant minority did not favour online voting. One person said,

“not in a million years, anything digital and online can be easily manipulated by cheats. Trust is the issue”.

Another asked:

“How will you make it secure, given the well documented issues that prevent that?”

Of course, there were people on the other side who were very much in favour. Some did not trust postal votes as an alternative, and Andy was

“inclined to trust the security of asymmetric cryptographic protocols”.

I trust Andy implicitly, so if he trusts them, I am sure that I should also trust them to provide the security needed for online voting. Clearly, we must address the issue of trust in the security of online voting. Public support for such measures is still far from universal, and traditional means of voting, such as polling stations and postal voting, remain popular with the electorate. Online voting would have to be an extra voting channel.

Speaking as a Liberal Democrat rather than as a Minister, I would be very happy for trials to take place in future, now that we have individual electoral registration in place. That was one of the building blocks that needed to be in place to enable trials to go ahead. I hope that that will be considered in future.

The debate has been interesting. All Members will have their own opinions on which ideas merit further effort to bring them into being. The report from the Speaker’s commission is a useful contribution to the ongoing debate. I have highlighted many of the successes of recent years, but I am sure that many Members will be keen to continue the pace of reform, particularly in taking the maximum advantage of the opportunities offered by advances in technology.

The Chamber is becoming more relevant to the lives of our constituents, whether through topical questions or Back-Bench debates on issues such as Hillsborough or contaminated blood, or through Mr Speaker’s greater use of urgent questions. It is important that our constituents see the relevance of what we debate to their everyday lives, and, importantly, that they feel able to engage in the political process. Technology is one way in which we can enable better participation in the parliamentary process and in politics more generally.

New technology has provided the means to move from our existing representative democracy to a participatory democracy, which could represent a fundamental constitutional change, affecting the role of MPs and their constituents, as well as the processes by which we govern. That bring its own challenges—for example, being clear about what is on offer, being genuinely open to ideas, and considering suitable accountability for participative mechanisms of engagement. It is in that context that we need to consider further the purpose and parameters of the reforms we have discussed today. I look forward to the debate being resumed in the next Parliament.

Housing Association Transfer Ballots

Tom Brake Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. I thank him for providing the notes for his speech so that I will, I hope, be able to respond directly to the points that has raised, albeit perhaps not with the answers that he is hoping for. If he feels at the end of the debate that there are points that I have not addressed, I will be happy to ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who apologises for not being here, provides a written response.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is doing with him in relation to leaseholders. I think all Members of Parliament will be aware of the difficulties that leaseholders often face, so we would all welcome any reform that can come through that work.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the decent homes initiative, which was initiated by his party in government. That was a good, sound programme. Rightly, however, he noted that in its initial stages it may have meant that the building of new properties was not taking place. We are all trying to catch up with that now. It was certainly a very important programme. In my borough, it is still ongoing. As part of that, there is lots of scaffolding up on the St Helier estate to provide new roofs.

The hon. Gentleman touched on affordable housing. I think we are in agreement about that. Unfortunately, I am underwhelmed by what the Mayor has achieved in that respect in London. Relatively few properties have been built, and there is clearly a strong demand for that.

The hon. Gentleman rightly focused this debate on the significant issue of whether tenants have the right to throw out their housing association. I will give him a very clear response to that shortly.

I agree that we need to build more homes and fix the housing market. The Government’s measures on the economy are part of that. In ensuring that the economy is working, we are getting the investment that is needed into the housing market and keeping interest rates down for home buyers. The situation is starting to turn round. Since 2010, over half a million homes have been built, and there are now 700,000 more homes in England than in 2009. I am pleased to say that house building is now at its highest level since 2007. We have recovered from the crash, in terms of house building.

The hon. Gentleman referred to stock transfers, which have played an important role in providing investment in housing stock. As a result of the transfers that have taken place in his borough and elsewhere, transformations have been carried out, improving local communities and quality of life for tenants.

Since 1988, about 1.3 million former council homes have been transferred to the ownership of housing associations. That has enabled billions of pounds of investment in bringing homes up to a decent standard. It has also supported the delivery of thousands of new affordable homes by the newly created housing associations, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is not enough. There is a cross-party consensus—I think it will be identified in all the party manifestos—that there is a need to do something about housing, particularly affordable housing. Every party—my party, the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Conservative party—has set out what it wants to achieve.

The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to part 2, chapter 7 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, under which enforcement powers are open to the Homes and Communities Agency regulator to use in dealing with a failing or failed provider. They are not open to tenants. In the housing association sector, however, tenants’ rights are protected through a range of mechanisms.

That leads me to the points the hon. Gentleman made about the abolition of the Tenant Services Authority and the role of the HCA regulator. The enactment of the Localism Act 2011 abolished the TSA and transferred its remaining functions to the HCA. It also significantly scaled back the regulator’s role in the proactive monitoring and enforcement of consumer protection standards. The rationale for that is that the vast majority of landlord-tenant issues are locally based. They are most effectively resolved at a local level by tenants and their representatives, not by a national regulator.

The Act gave back to tenants and their representatives the power to hold landlords to account, giving MPs, councillors and recognised tenant panels a formal role in resolving complaints at a local level. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if they cannot be resolved locally. The housing ombudsman, and the tenants themselves, can, of course, raise specific concerns with the HCA regulator. The regulator does not have powers to mediate in or resolve individual cases, but will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment and, in extremis, have far-reaching powers to intervene where there is evidence of serious mismanagement. The regulator has the powers to initiate a statutory inquiry if it feels that to be necessary, and that can lead to muscular interventions in the housing association management structures or to forced mergers or takeovers where the boards are not fit for purpose. I am glad to say that the regulator rarely needs to use such powers.

I now turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about One Housing Group and sacking housing associations. I am afraid that, as his legal advice suggests, there are no powers available for tenants to sack or fire their housing associations. Clearly, I do not wish to underestimate the impact felt by the individuals whose lives are affected by mergers of the members of One Housing Group, or what they may see as very real grievances. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in individual cases of this nature.

The Localism Act placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back in the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. Where the ombudsman finds in favour of a complainant, it may order the landlord to pay compensation or take other steps to provide redress. I should make it clear, however, that the role of the Ombudsman is focused on the provision of housing services by landlords. Its role does not extend to constitutional changes within housing associations.

On affordable housing supply, overall this Government’s approach to the sector has been appropriate and is delivering results. Despite the fiscal constraints, we have secured capital resources for affordable housing. Almost 217,000 affordable homes have been delivered in England since April 2010. In comparison—the hon. Gentleman may have referred to these figures himself—under the previous Administration the number of social rented homes fell by 420,000 between 1997 and 2010.

With £19.5 billion of public and private investment, our affordable homes programme is on track to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015, and more than 144,000 homes have already been delivered. Another £38 billion of public and private investment will help ensure that 275,000 more new affordable homes are provided between 2015 and 2020. I hope that all parties and future Governments will sign up to that. It means that over the next Parliament we will build more new affordable homes than during any equivalent period in the past 20 years.

I have directly addressed the hon. Gentleman’s specific question and I am afraid that the answer is no. I will conclude by encouraging him to contact me again if he feels I have not addressed any of his points adequately.

Question put and agreed to.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I had to fight the temptation to start and finish my speech by saying, “I refer the House to my speech from 17 July 2013, column 1165”, when the Opposition tabled the very same motion. As they have clearly not attempted to address any of the issues raised in that debate—the deficiencies of which were pointed out by some Labour Members and have been pointed out again by the Leader of the House today, and the motion was rightly rejected—I think I could quite legitimately have dusted down the same speech.

The last debate was a car crash of the most epic proportions after which many expected a Bennett-style apology from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). He said today—I think he has repeated some of the same errors—that this debate was about second jobs, but it is clear that he has not read his own motion which makes no reference to second jobs. We all know why Labour has chosen to re-run this debate. It heard that bell ringing on the bandwagon, started salivating at the prospect of some political nourishment, and leapt on it.

I do not for one moment suggest that the actions of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) should not be investigated—they should, and they were right to refer themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The code of conduct is clear in stating what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure that the commissioner will investigate those cases thoroughly to see whether the rules have been observed or broken.

If this was a genuine attempt by Labour to address in a cross-party way public concerns about trust in MPs and their outside interests, the Leader of the Opposition needed to do much more than his half-hearted effort at Prime Minister’s questions to engage with the other parties. Before getting on their high horse, Labour Members should consider how many on their Benches are effectively in the pocket of the unions, taking their money and giving their questions and speeches in the House in return. Will Labour seek to clamp down on that?

What about party funding? There is a wider issue about too much money sloshing around in politics. That is why we have always argued that there should be limits on donations because the more we can get big money out of politics, the better. What about political reform? Surely it is not a coincidence that the worst expenses abuses involved MPs in safe seats. The more genuine competition that all MPs face, the more likely high standards are to be maintained. What are effectively jobs for life in safe seats clearly risk breeding a certain kind of culture.

Surely this debate is not about forcing MPs to stop practising as lawyers or doctors, or to drop an interest in a family business. The scandals arise when parliamentarians use their privileged positions and contacts to try to earn huge amounts of money by lobbying for business. If parties are serious about cleaning up politics, they should ditch the rhetoric and work on a cross-party basis to end those cash for access cases once and for all.

More positively, it is clear that the House is agreed that it is the responsibility of all of us to uphold the highest standards and that the vast majority of Members do so. Our rules against paid advocacy are essential, and breaches of them should be punished. Efforts to ensure maximum transparency and accountability must always be maintained. The Government have a strong record and we will maintain that record. It has been evident from the debate, however, that if there is a problem to be solved, the motion from the Opposition does nothing to provide a solution.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) that we do not want vacuous functionaries in this place and that we want a diversity of Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) rightly highlighted the partnership issue. If the Opposition were serious about addressing directorships and consultancies, why miss out the whole issue of partnerships? My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) sensibly explained that it would be easy for directors to avoid the Opposition’s proposals by becoming unpaid directors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) rightly highlighted the anti-politics movement that is abroad at present, and said that we each have a duty to act responsibly in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) also touched on the issue of partnerships, and I am very pleased that he has picked up the baton from me as the Member who deals with the most delegated legislation. I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on being the poor relation in terms of entries on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I have one unpaid directorship as a director of a local environmental charity, EcoLocal. I made it clear in my election campaign back in 1997 that I would not take any paid directorships or consultancies. I went into the campaign on that basis and my Conservative opponent made it clear that he would continue to hold his directorships. A choice was therefore presented to the electorate and that is what they need. The electorate should be able to choose. If Members want to maintain an interest and they make that clear, it is up to the electorate to decide whether they accept that. Saying that I would not take any outside work did not do me any harm, and I suspect that one of the reasons I won the seat was that my opponent said that he would maintain his paid directorships and consultancies. But that is a decision for the electorate to make, not any of the parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was very brave in sticking his head above the parapet on MPs’ pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made an interesting point, which no one else picked up on, about the increased patronage that would result from the changes that have been proposed, by putting power in the hands of the party leaders.

The House will have noticed the contrast in approaches. The Opposition are trying to boost their green credentials by recycling this debate from 20 months ago. How have they used the time since that motion was defeated? They have no new ideas, no clarity and no substance. In contrast, the Government are committed to promoting transparency in terms of Members’ relations with the public and the political system as a whole. We have taken measures including a statutory register of consultant lobbyists; legislating for the recall of Members of Parliament; strengthening the rules governing business appointments for Ministers on leaving office; and proactively publishing details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations, and of Ministers’ and officials’ meetings with senior media executives. Those measures will bring greater accountability and transparency to our democracy. That needs constant effort and reflection—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

In responding to the Second Reading debate on behalf of the Government, I want to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, particularly for their positive comments about the Bill. I am grateful for the support offered by members of the Governance Committee and the official Opposition. A number of Members have raised individual points, to which I will seek to respond.

First, I again thank the Opposition spokesman for setting out in his opening remarks the role of the Commission, from which we could all benefit—Members of Parliament and the wider public. He also set out his party’s position on the election of commissioners. I hope that he would agree that that is not a matter for the Bill. It therefore does not set out how the process should be carried out.

We then heard from the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who stressed the importance of connecting the Commission with Members. I think that we all share his hope that the Commission will be more responsive, more in tune and more in keeping with best practice. I agree with his point about the Commission not always being good at providing direction. The specific function added by the Bill will provide greater clarity on the leadership of the House, and the new membership will ensure that the leadership is fully representative of Members and staff.

We then heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Like all Members who have spoken, I would like to thank him once again for the key role he played in the House of Commons Governance Committee, and for his willingness to do something that has not been done for 40 years. I think that he put it very delicately when he said that there was perhaps a difference of emphasis on the issue of the leadership of the House—how very diplomatic of him. However, he went on to underline in slightly less diplomatic terms some of the less functional, or possibly even dysfunctional, aspects of the Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of pay for commissioners. Clearly that is a matter for the House, rather than the Bill, but I am sure that those arrangements, whatever they might be in future, will take account of the public’s desire for the cost of politics not to go up—although I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which is that if all the commissioners are paid, the shadow Leader of the House would be left in a rather impecunious position, as the only member who would not receive a salary for the role.

[Thomas Docherty]

For the avoidance of doubt, that was not my main argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a significant work load, and my point was that there was no suggestion that the shadow Leader of the House—I can say this because she is safely out of the country—is seeking to be paid. If the logic is based on the work load, I should point out that her work load is significantly higher than that of other commissioners.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although I must say that it was not needed, because I had not suggested that the shadow Leader of the House had primed him to make a bid for additional funding for her post.

We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). With regard to his claim that he was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around, I say, “Nice try.” I am sure that is not entirely factual. I would like to thank him for the key role he plays on the Commission, which is important for all Members of Parliament, and he does it very effectively. We always enjoy listening to his responses to questions on the Commission, particularly on the subject of mice, on which he is an expert. He rightly underlined that the commissioners should have specific responsibilities. Renovation and restoration is one area where there is a very clear opening for someone to undertake or be involved in a very substantial piece of work.

My right hon. Friend also highlighted the fact that there is no enabling clause to bring together the Members estimate and the administration estimate. I accept that that is worth further consideration, but getting it right will require a little more time and we do not want to hold up the Bill by trying to pursue it. We have already touched on the subject of whether the extra members should be paid and the position that would leave the shadow Leader of the House in—although, she has not made a specific request for funding for her position.

Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I would like to thank him for the key role he has played on the Administration Committee. He, like a number of Members, stressed his hope that the new Commission will improve communications and coherence. That is one of the key messages that have come out of the debate.

This has been a short debate, which demonstrates that the modest provisions in the Bill have support from across the House. I will therefore detain the House no further and hope that the Bill can now make rapid progress. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

House of Commons Commission Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Clause 1 deals with changes to the membership of the Commission. It amends the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which established the Commission and defined its membership. The amendments set out in clause 1 extend the membership from the current six Members of Parliament to 11 members in total.

Under subsections (2) and (3), the new Commission will consist of seven parliamentary members, two external members and two official members. Subsection (4) provides that the external members, like other members, will be appointed by resolution of the House and that those members cannot come from Parliament itself—they must be genuinely external.

New subsection (2C) specifies that the official members are the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons, when the latter is appointed. The new post of Director General is not otherwise defined in statute, so the Bill provides, in new subsection (2C)(b), for the Commission to appoint an alternative official if the post is vacant or ceases to exist. That allows the Commission the freedom to change the name of that senior post at a future point without recourse to legislative change.

Subsection (5) provides a definition for members of staff of the House of Lords. There is no need to provide an equivalent definition for Commons staff because the term “staff in the House Departments” is already used in the 1978 Act.

Finally, subsection (6) gives effect to the schedule, which makes further provision about the membership and procedures of the Commission, which we will debate later. The clause and the accompanying schedule implement the legislative recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee regarding the membership of the Commission.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I will be extremely brief. We welcome this clause, which is a logical extension. I see no need to continue this debate any longer than necessary.

[Tom Brake]

Hear, hear to that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Functions of the Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

Clause 2 amends section 2 of the 1978 Act. It extends the role of the Commission to include the setting of strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments. That function is added to the Commission’s current statutory responsibilities for staff appointments, numbers, pay and pensions. This amendment to the 1978 Act implements in full a recommendation from the House of Commons Governance Committee and makes explicit in statute a role that the Commission otherwise fulfils by default. The precise way in which the Commission carries out that function is not prescribed in the Bill, in order to allow the Commission flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to discharge its responsibilities.

[Thomas Docherty]

Again, I will be as brief as possible. As I said on Second Reading—all that time ago—I am frankly astonished that we have gone 30-odd years without having a Commission set out that one of its core functions is from time to time to set out strategic priorities. I think that is a very obvious point that should be addressed. When external members are selected and the parliamentary parties choose their representatives, I hope that the parliamentary parties and the Commission will bear in mind the qualities that are needed. The Commission’s job is not to micro-manage the House service; it is to set strategic priorities. That is therefore a key requirement in external member appointments and the choice of members to serve for the parliamentary parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

Clause 3 sets out the commencement procedures for the Bill. These are designed to ensure that the reformed Commission can be established as quickly as possible. This is achieved through bringing the new Commission into being when the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed, but allowing for the appointments process for other members of the Commission to continue prior to this date.

For the benefit of the House, I will quickly set out the detail of how these commencement provisions will operate, as I am conscious that they are not straightforward. From the day that this Bill is passed, it will be possible to appoint the new members of the Commission. This will ensure that the process for appointing the parliamentary and external members of the Commission can start as soon as possible and that the new Director General and the Clerk can join the Commission at an early stage. These appointments, and the Commission’s new function of setting strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments, will take effect on the day after the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Sittings in Westminster Hall

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), relating to business in Westminster Hall.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving his OBE at the Palace today, and I am grateful to him for returning to the Chamber. I know he has been keen for the House to consider and decide on the outstanding work of his Committee before Dissolution. I am pleased that we have been able to facilitate that this afternoon.

We will consider three of the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee today, but there is further House business to attend to, including reports by the Procedure and the Standards and Privileges Committees, the Standing Order changes necessary to bring into effect the recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and the House of Commons Commission Bill that we have just considered. I expect there to be further opportunities for the House to consider those issues before 30 March, and it is the Government’s intention to provide time for those outstanding reports—including the report on private Members’ Bills—that have been agreed, so that those issues on which there is a wide consensus can be resolved before the end of the Parliament. I stress the importance of there being a wide consensus.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s choice of words. It is our view, with the best will in the world, that a wide consensus is not the same as a Government veto. If the Government do not like a substantive part of the report on private Members’ Bills, they should say so publicly, which, ironically enough, is one of the things that the report seeks to get them to do in relation to private Members’ Bills. The Government simply not wanting to table a motion is not an excuse for not debating the issue in the House. The House is supreme and it should decide, not the Government.

[Tom Brake]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has now made two forceful bids for that report to be debated. It is worth underlining, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as anyone of the range of views on the issue of private Members’ Bills and how the process could be improved, ameliorated or changed.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Given that we have strayed into the area of private Members’ Bills, I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know this is slightly naughty. The Government’s opposition to so much of that report seems implacable, so it is probably best that it is not debated in this Session, unless that opposition relents.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification and apparent counter-bid to block any proposal to debate that particular report.

I would now like to move on to the motion and thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he set it out. The motion is the result of the Procedure Committee’s “Business in Westminster Hall” report, published in October 2014, and the follow-up report, which included the Government response and a revised Standing Order No. 10, published in January.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee for the comprehensive way in which he set out the implications for the House of agreeing the motion. I am also grateful for the work of the Committee and pleased that the report recognises that the Government accepted the majority of the recommendations in the original report.

The changes that will be introduced if the House approves the motion represent a sensible package of evolutionary changes to the work conducted in the second Chamber. Westminster Hall has proved itself as a valued resource since its introduction in 1999. Indeed, I can confirm that I used to make extensive use of Westminster Hall, usually for debates on the future of my local hospital, St Helier, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and I continue to campaign to this day, although that is not the purpose of this debate. The changes will, I hope, add further to the status of Westminster Hall. We have already seen some of the changes during this Parliament. For example, the use of additional time on Mondays for the consideration of e-petitions by the Backbench Business Committee is testament to the sort of valuable work that is conducted in Westminster Hall.

The Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the provision of one-hour debates on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—by extending sittings for half an hour—will provide useful additional flexibility and is a welcome recognition of anecdotal evidence that many Members who wish to raise issues feel constrained by the limits of a 30-minute debate, but would not necessarily wish to apply for a 90-minute debate. That change will be welcomed by Members, without placing additional onerous requirements on Ministers and Opposition spokespeople. The arrangements set out in chapter 2 of the Committee’s original report, to provide an opportunity for Opposition spokespeople to participate in such debates, are sensible, although my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will have heard a request from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for clarification on the precise role that Opposition spokespeople will play. I and others would certainly appreciate clarity from the Procedure Committee on whether the proposal is optional or the Member who has initiated the debate will have to request it.

Similarly, the changes that mean that debates in Westminster Hall will be considered on neutral general motions, not Adjournment motions, is entirely sensible. Clearly, there are people among the wider public who understand what an Adjournment motion is, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of members of the public, and perhaps Members of Parliament, would be more comfortable with “general motions” as a clear description of what is being debated.

[Mr Walker]

On speeches by Opposition Front Benchers, the report says that

“so long as they are brief we recommend that Opposition spokespeople be able to participate in hour-long debates in Westminster Hall. We trust that Chairs in Westminster Hall, backed by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Panel of Chairs, will offer robust guidance to Opposition spokespeople on the appropriate length of their speeches.”

It is not the Committee’s intention that Opposition spokespeople get the same amount of time as a Minister.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, although it still leaves slightly open the question of whether it is optional. The Chair could choose not to allow the Opposition spokesman or woman to speak. I am sure that can be clarified in the future.

Many in the House are keen that our work is as open and transparent to members of the public as possible, and this is a small step in the direction of giving the House’s procedures greater clarity and consistency.

The Government did not agree with three issues in the original report. Those issues are set out in the Government response and the subsequent report containing the revised recommendations. I am grateful to the Committee for being willing to accept the Government’s view on those issues, and for bringing before the House a set of proposals that should have widespread support from across the House.

With regard to the use of substantive motions in Westminster Hall, the Government agree that the main Chamber is the proper place for debates on amendable business, not least in view of the practical difficulties surrounding voting in Westminster Hall. The Government do not wish to rule out the possibility of taking some substantive business in Westminster Hall at some point—for example, to remove pressure on the Chamber—but much more work would need to be undertaken on the practical and procedural implications. For that reason, the Government did not support the recommendations of the Committee for the repeal of paragraphs (9) and (12) of Standing Order No. 10, although we accept that those provisions have not been used.

The Committee recommended that the current sittings on Mondays and Thursdays be swapped so that Select Committee debates chosen by the Liaison Committee and Back-Bench debates would be taken on a Monday, and any debates on e-petitions would be scheduled on a Thursday. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said, the Government are committed to maintaining the integrity of Thursday as a full parliamentary day, which I hope all Members of the House will respect. The Committee’s proposals, which the Government could not support, would send a contrary signal, particularly given that there would be no business in Westminster Hall on many Thursdays.

The Committee proposed an earlier start and finish time in Westminster Hall on Thursdays. Without evidence of widespread support for this measure, the Government opposed it. I am grateful to the Committee for deciding not to press that proposal.

I again thank the Committee for its work. I ask the House to support the motion. If approved, the new Standing Order would be introduced at the start of the next Parliament.