| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Lady. When I first entered the House in 1991, I found myself in similar circumstances—that was before even the Jubilee café was available to visitors. We do not treat visitors with the respect that they deserve. After all, most of them are citizens of this country and, in the case of school students, future citizens, so we ought to give them a proper welcome. They should be entitled to the kind of facilities that they would expect when visiting any other
important building in the country. We are looking into improving reception facilities and I hope to bring a motion to the House in due course, which will address some of those points.It is also a question of the whole attitude of the House. We treat our visitors as strangers—the title we give them, in our anachronistic fashion—rather than as visitors, many of whom are electors. They are entitled to be here and they should not be seen as being here on sufferance.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): The Leader of the House is very keen to provide opportunities for the Government to defend their integrity. In that context, will he find time for an early debate on the Government's abuse of taxpayers' money to fund politically motivated advertising campaigns, particularly in the light of the finding by Ofcom on Tuesday that the aim higher campaign to promote the Government's policy on tuition fees had "undue partiality" in a matter of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy, and to be contrary therefore to section 2, rule 15 of the Radio Authority advertising and sponsorship code? Given that the Government have broken the code, and given that about £600,000 of taxpayers' money has been used to promote a very contentious Government policy, should we not have a debate or a statement from the Government apologising for that?
Mr. Hain: As I understand it, although I am not aware of all the detail, the aim of the campaign was to encourage teenagers, especially young teenagers, to go to university. It had nothing to do with a particular aspect of the Higher Education Bill. However, if the Ofcom report has made a recommendation that censures or criticises the Government in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, it is obviously an important matter and the Secretary of State will want to take that on board and be accountable to the House for it.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): In his reply to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Leader of the House explained that the Home Office had to be consulted in connection with the response to the Sessional Orders report. However, he did not deal with the second half of the question, on how he intends to respond to the report on the procedures for debating private Members' Bills and the role of the Speaker, and in particular the innovative ideas in the report on ways to involve more Back Benchers in debates.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry that I did not pick up that point from the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) earlier, but I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) now. It is an interesting report, which has raised many issues. We will respond in due course, and I hope that he will be satisfied with that.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): Does the Leader of the House expect an oral statement next week on the release of the Penrose report on Equitable Life? As it has now been available to the Government, and
selectively to those criticised in it, for over five weeks, at what point does he intervene to protect the House of Commons from continuing to be denied it?
Mr. Hain: Again, the hon. Gentleman has properly raised an issue of concern to all Members, as well as to many hundreds, if not thousands, of our voters. This issue must be addressed and I am sure that an opportunity will be found to do so.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1.22 pm
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): The Standards and Privileges Committee published its second report of this Session yesterday, and it directed that I should apologise to the House for my failure to register my work for the BBC television programme "This Week". I accept that I should have registered my work for the programme. I take full responsibility for the failure to register. I have co-operated fully with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in his investigation and I have apologised to him for my oversight. I am glad to take this early opportunity to apologise to the House.
As the commissioner notes in his memorandum, my involvement in the programme could hardly have been concealed given its nature, and most people aware of it might have assumed that I was being paid for it. But the House of Commons quite correctly has a strict code of conduct in these matters, and the Standards and Privileges Committee is rightly vigilant on this. I well remember the debates about the conduct of MPs in the 1990s, and for the House of Commons to retain the confidence of the public it is right that there should be the utmost transparency. Once again, I apologise to the House.
House of Commons Members Estimate
1.24 pm
The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
- That—
(1) There shall be a committee of this House, called the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee.
(2) The members of the committee shall be those Members who are at any time members of the House of Commons Commission pursuant to section 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; the Speaker shall be chairman of the committee; and three shall be the quorum of the committee.
(3) The functions of the committee shall be—
(a) to codify and keep under review the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members;
(b) to modify those provisions from time to time as the committee may think necessary or desirable in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances;
(c) to provide advice, when requested by the Speaker, on the application of those provisions in individual cases;
(d) to carry out the responsibilities conferred on the Speaker by the Resolution of the House of 5th July 2001 relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance, &c., except the responsibility of appointing the Advisory Panel provided for in paragraph (5)(1) of that Resolution.
(4) Paragraph (3)(b) above does not empower the committee—
(a) to create a new form of charge on the Estimate for House of Commons: Members; or
(b) to increase any rate of charge or payment determined by Resolution of this House.
(5) The committee shall report to the House from time to time, and in any case not less than once a year, the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members, as codified and modified pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Order.
(6) The committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
That this Order be a standing order of the House.
- That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1998 on the bicycle allowance be rescinded and the following provision be made in its place:
(1) That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 2004 with respect to the rates of mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys by motorcycle, scooter or bicycle for which if undertaken by car, the car mileage allowance would be payable,
(a) by Members, or
(b) by spouses, children or employees paid from the staffing allowance;
(2) In respect of journeys by motorcycle or scooter, a motorcycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the motorcycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force;
(3) In respect of journeys by bicycle, a bicycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the bicycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force.
I will deal first with the motion establishing a new House of Commons Estimate Committee, which I have tabled with the full support of the House of Commons Commission. The motion provides for a new Committee, of the same membership as the House of Commons Commission, to be established by Standing Order to oversee Members' allowances matters in much the same way as the Commission oversees matters relating to the House administration.
The motivation for the motion is threefold. First, the intention is to improve the governance of the House. Interestingly, we find that there is a crossover between the two House of Commons estimates—between the House of Commons administration estimate, for which the House of Commons Commission has statutory responsibility, and the House of Commons Members' estimate, which does not fall within the responsibility of the Commission. For example, an increase in Members' IT provision, which falls to the Members' estimate, has implications for the back-up IT services provided by the House administration. It makes sense to bring oversight of the two estimates closer together.
Secondly, the rules on Members' allowances are governed by a large number of complex resolutions, dating as far back as 1945. They are not readily accessible, and are very hard to understand and reconcile one with another. There would be considerable benefit in consolidating and updating these resolutions and in presenting them in an accessible form that we can all understand.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |