Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979, noting that the Public Bill Office will assist Members as required in the preparation of such statements.

The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friends the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader hon Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my predecessor, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight).

I note that I may detain the House into the small hours of tomorrow morning if I so wish. That is a tempting proposition, as I have lots of scores to settle with many colleagues. However, as I quite like getting elected to things I will not, on this occasion, detain the House for long and will make a very short speech. I hope that colleagues will make very short speeches too, and that we can wend our way into the night for an evening of fun, frolicking and frivolity.

The report “Explanatory statements on amendments” is a serious piece of work undertaken, in the main, by my predecessor, and I was lucky enough to inherit it in October last year. The Committee is saying that explanatory statements to amendments are an extremely good thing: they allow for informed debate, and for people to have an understanding of what those tabling amendments are trying to achieve. We have, however, taken a permissive, rather than a prescriptive, view. We believe that the Government, if given the opportunity to do so, will want to do the right thing, and that the right thing is to put forward explanatory statements to amendments. I look at the Chief Whip and the Deputy Leader of the House and see two people totally committed to doing the right thing. They have done the right thing throughout their parliamentary careers—one of those careers has lasted for more than 40 years—and I am certain that that will continue to be the case for what remains of their illustrious parliamentary careers. I note that the Chief Whip is not smiling too much, so I will move on.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when considering changes to our procedures we should never do anything that might discourage scrutiny? Does he share my concerns that the amendment to the motion, if passed, could act as a deterrent to some amendments being tabled?

[Mr Walker]

One reason for not taking a prescriptive approach is that a disorderly explanatory statement attached to a reasonable amendment—perhaps one tabled in a short amount of time—might lead to it not getting on to the Order Paper, thus restricting debate.

To return to my central point, I believe that Members of Parliament, the Government and the Opposition should want to do the right thing, and I am hopeful that they will do the right thing. If they do not do the right thing, it would be reasonable for the House and the Procedure Committee to revisit the issue in the not-too-distant future.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am disappointed by the weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s argument so far. I hope it is going to get a bit better. How can explaining one’s amendment possibly be a deterrent to debate? His confidence in his colleagues’ willingness to do the right thing is somewhat undermined by the fact that they did not do that when there was a pilot. If, as he says, he wants people to do this, why does he not make it mandatory, rather than just hoping they will do it despite evidence that they will not?

[Mr Walker]

I think the hon. Lady has indicated that it was not the case that the Government tabled amendments in the pilot, but at the Committee stage of the Small Charitable Donations Bill 42 amendments were tabled by Back Benchers, the Government and the Opposition, and 40 of them had explanatory statements. On Report, all 37 amendments had explanatory statements. If I am misreading that, I apologise.

I have more faith in this place than the hon. Lady. I have faith in my colleagues and believe that, given the opportunity to do the right thing, they will do the right thing. The fantastic thing about the Procedure Committee and about bringing reports to the Floor of the House is that it is open to the House to amend them. This is a vehicle for change. I note that she and colleagues have tabled an amendment, and it will be for the House to decide the way forward, not me, as Chairman of the Committee, or its other members. I will not detain the House much longer. I am sorry that the Committee’s report comes as such a disappointment to a number of colleagues, but I repeat that it is within their gift to amend it, and I hope that they do.

In conclusion, I would simply add that a team of Clerks are champing at the bit to help Back-Bench colleagues attach explanatory statements to their amendments. They are ready, waiting and willing to do these things. I also hope that there is an army of Whitehall civil servants wanting to seize the day and impress their Ministers with their diligence and brilliance. I look, too, at the Opposition, in all their glory, and know that, despite our living in straitened times with limited resources, they will turn to their researchers and their special advisers—they are not really special advisers, but that is what they are called—and will demand that they step up to the plate and provide explanatory statements. I appreciate that it will not be possible on all occasions, but let us make this a new beginning for the way we conduct business in this place. If the House does not take this opportunity, however, the Committee will revisit the matter and bring forward more prescriptive recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point of the explanatory statements. They would simply make the aim of an amendment clear. If that aim is to seek information from the Government, that could be made perfectly clear.

I should like to move on to costs and resources. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Procedure Committee did not recommend a mandatory approach partly because it thought that that could take up time and resources, and that it could therefore restrict the ability of the Opposition and Back-Bench Members to table amendments. It feared that that could be damaging to the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation. I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the opposite is true, and that mandatory statements would save time and improve scrutiny.

The evidence from the Public Bill Office is clear on the question of resource implications. It stated that, where assistance was given with the drafting of explanatory statements,

“this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment), and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve.”

So the idea that this would create a burden for the Opposition and Back Benchers is not supported by the Public Bill Office, which has made it clear that the statements typically save time.

The Public Bill Office also stated:

“It is not that difficult to draft a brief explanatory statement, and a Member seeking to table an amendment might want to think again about doing so if they were unable to explain briefly what it would achieve.”

This brings us to the nub of the issue. Do we want Back Benchers to participate or not? Do we want our constituents and our local press to be able to follow what is going on? Do we want this to be possible at all times or only some of the time, and who gets to be the judge of when people should or should not necessarily get to receive these explanations? If we want scrutiny, surely we have to make sure that those who might scrutinise are properly assisted to do so; otherwise, one might ask what is the point of the amendments at all.

Still on resources, the Clerk of the House produced a helpful memorandum pointing out that there would be no extra costs to the PBO, but there could be some printing costs. However, once self-explanatory and consequential amendments are discounted, the printing costs would clearly be very low. In the context of the entire printing costs of this place, the likely cost for this is tiny—less than 0.00005% of a £7 million annual spend on the printing of procedural publications.

For that minimal cost, we would get something valuable—information, and information being given to those who should have it as they vote on legislation that affects us all. When the bell goes, we should all know why. Brief explanations would not only allow Members to check what they are voting on when the bell goes, but allow us to see in advance what Members seeking to amend legislation are attempting to do. This would enhance scrutiny and might even increase participation in the Chamber, as Members could easily see in advance what an amendment was for.

In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is more than procedural housekeeping. I think our constituents would be shocked if they knew that their MPs often did not know what they were voting on. When I run down the escalator from Portcullis House at the same time as many other colleagues, I often hear people saying “What are we voting on; what are we voting on?” I am not whipped, so I have to find that out myself, but many colleagues do not necessarily have that information, and I think that they should. This is not a criticism of colleagues. I have no doubt that MPs do not like trying to find out what the vote is on as they run down the escalators. The point is that this information is not being properly provided. It is good that the Procedure Committee is calling for a scheme to make explanations possible, so let us make sure that everyone uses it.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I have some sympathy for the hon. Lady’s argument. The problem we all have is that we are sent here to legislate, but we fill our time with so many other things that we actually forget our primary role, which is to pay attention to what is going on in this place and to scrutinise the Government. One reason why we often do not know what is going on is that we choose—we make the choice—not to know what is going on.

[Caroline Lucas]

There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the conclusion of what he said is that he genuinely expects 650 Members to be in this Chamber—day in, day out—to scrutinise all legislation, I think he is more optimistic than I am, because I do not think that is likely. I believe we also have other important roles, such as providing scrutiny through Select Committees, which are every bit as important as at least some of the debates in this Chamber. It is a realistic assumption that not everybody can be here.

In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will vote for amendment (a) to give Back Benchers and the public a right to explanations of what we vote on in this House. We have an opportunity tonight to restore trust in what we do, to show that we want to scrutinise and to make the way in which this place operates healthier and more transparent, so let us take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will find that I make many astute comments and they are never inadvertent. No, that is not the tension we want in the House; we want understanding, and we want sensible debate focused on the issues at stake, not guesswork as to what those might be. It does not matter whether it comes from the official Opposition, a Back-Bench Member or the Government: clarity is an addition and support to the value of our debate in this House. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would take a different view.

I know that whichever way the debate goes this evening, the Government will produce an explanatory statement every time an amendment is tabled. I have no confidence, I am afraid—for the reasons exemplified by the approach of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—that the Opposition will do the same. I am afraid that the argument that they do not have the resources to produce such statements is a canard. First, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, it takes very little resource to do so. Secondly, let us explode the myth that every Member who tables an amendment writes it himself or herself. That is not the case. Amendments are often prepared by well-resourced outside bodies that would have no problem whatsoever providing an explanatory statement. If all else fails, the official Opposition have something called Short money—a considerable amount of money to support their parliamentary activities, including the tabling of amendments. What is the problem?

I believe that the amendment is sensible and I will support it this evening. Let me finish on one specific point. I note that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has been supported in a remarkable act of solidarity by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. Although I am glad that they can provide that support to the Procedure Committee, I wonder whether that is appropriate on what is essentially a House matter concerning our procedure. It appears to oblige the payroll vote to support the original motion rather than to vote according to what those Members consider to be the rights and wrongs. I am afraid that I think that this is a matter on which the House should decide, not the Government.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in the past three and a half years I have never sought the support of the Executive in any way, as demonstrated by my voting record? If they want to support a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, that is entirely down to those on the Front Bench, but it is not something that I have sought or would ever want to see.

[Mr Heath]

I absolutely accept that statement and it doubles my admiration for the solidarity expressed by those on the two Front Benches in supporting the hon. Gentleman. However, as a consequence of that, many members of the Government are sitting watching monitors wondering whether this chap will ever shut up so that they can move towards a vote. They are obliged to stay here to ensure that a rebel amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not succeed. I regret that, but I hope that we will have a sensible debate and that whichever view prevails this evening, every amendment will eventually have a short explanatory statement stating what the devil it is for.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I was speaking to the clause and amendment 47, which is a sensible way of considering the Bill. I might be tempted to go into a Second Reading speech, which I should not do. I believe that if we continue to address a non-issue in the Bill, we will intensify the lack of trust in this Committee and this Chamber. That issue is what the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently about before he was elected.

We are failing to do our job as members of the Committee, and handing over a mess of a Bill to the other House to correct and knock into shape. I appeal to the Minister to tell us in his winding-up speech what he will do on Report. Are we wasting our time attacking a non-problem in the Bill? Are we doing what he wants us to do, which is catch the minnows in the shallow waters while the great big salmon swim by unhindered?

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to a number of contributions, and genuine concerns have been expressed. I do a huge amount of work with Mind and Rethink on mental health, and with my 100% support and advice, in the run-up to the next general election they will be setting a number of challenges for the main political parties about how people with mental health problems are treated. They will be seeking positive responses to those challenges, and I need categorical assurance from the Minister and those on the Front Benches that such activities will not be caught by the Bill before us.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

To add to that point, does the hon. Gentleman think that MPs’ websites with links to charities might find themselves included in a charity’s costs if they are considered to be promoting a particular charity’s position in the run-up to an election?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady makes a constructive intervention, and no doubt the Minister will want to respond. Political engagement at whatever level in almost every form is greatly to be encouraged. I hope that the Government listen to the real concerns expressed today, and that that level of engagement is not suppressed.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for his contribution to the debate, and I acknowledge the excellent work he does on behalf of mental health charities. I assure him that mental health charities that campaign on policy issues will not be affected by what we are debating today. I hope he will agree, however, that if during a general election campaign one of the charities he has referred to advocated support for a party or a number of candidates, that would, in effect, constitute electioneering and have to be accounted for.

[Mr Walker]

I hear what the Minister says, but I think it is acceptable for a mental health charity to advise its members to consider carefully the responses it has received from the candidates it has quizzed when it comes to deciding how to cast their vote.

[Mr Allen]

My Committee reported in order to inform debates such as this, and we took evidence on this very issue from the Electoral Commission. The definition of “election purposes” changes and it now includes “enhancing the standing” of candidates. The Electoral Commission said:

“The new definition has been framed in a way that leaves a great deal of scope for us to interpret the meaning of the legislation, subject to being over-ruled by the courts as the result of a challenge. This effectively gives the Electoral Commission a wide discretion in deciding what the new regime means in practice…we do not think it is appropriate for us to have the sort of wide discretion over the meaning and scope of the regulatory regime that the Bill as drafted appears to provide.”

That is not my view or that of any member of my Committee. That is the view of the impartial and objective Electoral Commission. If it does not know, no trustee or person active in a charity can know at this moment.

[Mr Walker]

I intend to follow the Bill closely. I hope that any charity worth its salt would not direct its members towards the candidate of a particular political party. I hope charities simply ask their members to take into consideration the responses they have received from the various candidates.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will give way for a final time before I conclude my speech.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is precisely right, as hon. Members would expect, but does he share the concerns outlined by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee? The explanatory notes do not mention supporting candidates; they mention

“enhancing the standing of…candidates”,

which is open to interpretation.

[Mr Walker]

I share many of the concerns expressed in the Chamber this afternoon, which is why I, like all hon. Members, will listen closely to the Minister’s response.

[Wayne David]

rose—

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

They should be afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker—very afraid.

I now want to look at each part of the Bill in turn, beginning with the part on lobbying. The Leader of the House attempted to keep a straight face when he claimed that the proposals will make the lobbying industry more transparent, but I am not sure that even he believes it—almost no one else does. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that does not even capture Lynton Crosby. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that would allow a lobbyist lobbying an MP about the lobbying Bill to escape the requirement to sign its proposed register.

Three and a half years ago the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, told us that lobbying was

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

He did not tell us then that he was going to do nothing about it for over three years but survive a series of lobbying scandals and then produce a Bill so flawed that it would actually make things worse.

I have two key points to make about the proposals on lobbying set out in part 1. The first relates to the laughably narrow definition of “consultant lobbyist”. Under the Government’s definition, someone will count as a lobbyist only if they lobby directly Ministers or permanent secretaries and if their business is mainly for the purposes of lobbying. It is estimated that that will cover less than one fifth of those people currently working in the £2 billion lobbying industry, and the Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists would be covered. Moreover, it would be extremely easy to rearrange how such lobbying is conducted to evade the need to appear on the new register at all. The Bill is so narrow that it would fail to cover not only the lobbyist currently barnacle-scraping at the heart of No.10, but any of the lobbying scandals that have beset the Prime Minister in this Parliament.

My second point is that there is a real risk that the proposals will make lobbying less transparent than it is now. The Government’s proposed register would cover fewer lobbyists than the existing voluntary register run by the UK Public Affairs Council.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Is not the truth that far too many organisations are wasting their members’ money on hiring professional lobbyists and that their chief executives and principles would be far better advised to communicate directly with Members of Parliament, rather than farming that out to third-party organisations?

[Ms Eagle]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the Government had better get right all the issues of privilege, because otherwise MPs might end up having to be registered as lobbyists, which would be completely ridiculous.

The Bill also does not propose any code of conduct for lobbyists, which is a step backwards from the various voluntary registers that already govern parts of the industry. The Bill is so bad that it has achieved the unique feat of uniting both transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry against it. The Association of Professional Political Consultants spoke for them all when it told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it sees

“a very real risk that the overall effect will be to reduce transparency”.

The Opposition firmly believe that we need greater transparency in lobbying, not less. We will table a number of amendments to the Bill to bring in a universal register of all professional lobbyists, with a code of conduct backed by effective sanctions. We will also table amendments to close the revolving door between ministerial jobs and the private sector, and we will close the loophole that allows Lynton Crosby to be at the heart of No. 10 and yet to evade accountability and avoid publishing his client list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Part of the effect of this Bill, if unamended, will be to chill, damp down and frighten people who might otherwise campaign because they will be threatened with the criminal law if they get anything wrong.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not have a huge amount of time for 38 Degrees, but I am not going to address my concerns about that organisation. In the run-up to the general election, Mind and Rethink, two charities with which I am closely involved, want to set out a number of challenges for the main political parties. Does the hon. Lady feel that that will be caught by the Bill?

[Ms Eagle]

It is beholden on the Government to demonstrate that it will not, given that they have widened the meaning of the term “political purposes” and cut the amount of money that can be spent before it is necessary to register; that part of the Bill deals with coalitions and how they account for the cost of what they are doing; and that they have inserted some extremely uncertain definitions of “electoral purposes”. I do not want to get into a Committee-stage debate, but the Government cannot simply declaim that nothing has changed when they have changed, broadened and widened definitions and cut the amount of money that can be spent lawfully during an election period.

House of Commons Administration Estimate

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am blessed by the fact that I would never have to make the decision; it would be a decision for Mr Speaker and his advisers. As we all know, the Speaker is always right. Therefore, whatever decision he made would be both reasonable and appropriate. It was written deliberately in such a way that the final word is with the Chair for precisely the reason that if something came up where an exception were needed, it could be dealt with. That is very important.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May I confirm that the absence of a financial memorandum would not necessarily mean that a debate would be denied?

[John Thurso]

It is my understanding that a financial memorandum would be expected, and there are a number of occasions where it could be short and simple. If a circumstance arose in which a financial memorandum could not be prepared, it would be in the hands of Mr Speaker to make a decision. That is my understanding. If I have got that wrong, and there is a small percentage chance that that is the case, I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The effect of the Standing Order would be to require the accounting officer to provide a memorandum for any expenditure of more than £50,000 to the administration estimate. An example of such a motion, as I mentioned earlier, would be a proposal to establish a Select Committee. The Standing Order would also require a memorandum to be provided in respect of an amendment to a motion, if it would have a similar financial impact. As less notice might be given of an amendment, the absence of a memorandum would not necessarily prevent it from being debated, but the Speaker might take that factor into account in his selection of amendments. I therefore suggest, in partially addressing my previous answer, that there would nearly always be time for a motion, but the Chair may take a view where amendments are tabled. That is the most likely consequence.

This is a very small, but important change. It follows the principle that our decisions should be coherent and based on facts, so that we can make a measured judgment, and in the hands of the Members of this House. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I am somewhat surprised. Although I would never criticise an hon. Member, I should have thought that if the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wished to look into the way in which the Committee of Selection works, he might want to hear the evidence before putting his own views on record. However, he is his own very competent man, and he has his own views on these matters. I hope that he will also have an open mind when the Procedure Committee looks into how we might sensibly change the way in which the Committee of Selection works. I look forward to the work that it will devote to the subject.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Procedure Committee is very independent-minded, and that it will not be led by me.

[Ms Eagle]

I think that it may be one of the anarchist Committees that we have in the House. Given its membership, I know that it will not be led by anyone, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s undoubted prowess.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to accommodate anywhere near all of them, in the light of the important and heavily subscribed Back-Bench business to follow, brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike will be vital. We can be led in this important parliamentary endeavour by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, Mr Charles Walker.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we find time for an urgent debate on the shocking performance of the East of England ambulance service? I am in no doubt that the performance of the chairman, Maria Ball, and the chief executive, Hayden Newton, is falling well short of acceptable.

[Mr Lansley]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to the chairmanship of the Procedure Committee and say how much we look forward to working with him in discharging our business efficiently and effectively and in making the procedures of the House increasingly accessible, so that the public can engage with what the House does?

Code of Conduct

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of his Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A great deal of thought has gone into their review, and much of what is suggested makes perfect sense. However, my amendment seeks to address and limit the no doubt well-intentioned recommendation that will allow the commissioner to broaden his remit into investigating and adjudicating on Members’ conduct in their wider private and personal lives. I believe that that proposed intrusion into Members’ private and personal lives is a step too far, and I am worried about where it may lead the commissioner and the House if left unamended.

Justifying an extension of the commissioner’s powers, the Committee states on page 11 of its report, paragraph 2, that

“The Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives or in the wider conduct of their public lives unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”

If deconstructed, however, that statement, far from limiting the new powers of the commissioner in the area of Members’ private and personal lives, gives him almost unlimited scope to investigate any action committed in this space on the basis that it is potentially damaging to the reputation of Parliament and its Members. A less generous, but accurate, interpretation of paragraph 2, page 11, would read as follows: “The code will seek to regulate the conduct of Members of Parliament in their purely private and personal lives, if it is the view of the commissioner and the Committee that their actions could be deemed significantly to damage the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

I worry about where this new activism by the commissioner might lead. Over the weekend, I racked my brain to try and imagine scenarios in Members’ private lives that would trigger the interest of the commissioner, and I could only come up with two topics: the bedroom and the bottle. In common with most people, these are the two weaknesses that seem most likely to compromise Members of Parliament in their private lives.

On page 24 of the report, the commissioner argues that his interest is warranted on the basis that

“a Member of Parliament is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”

I dispute that view. Despite living in his constituency full-time, the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne—namely, myself—is, on occasion, most certainly off duty, and be assured, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were not off duty on occasions, I would slowly, but surely, go mad. Perhaps that point has already been reached.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I find it refreshing that the commissioner thinks we are never off duty. I wonder whether that will be reflected in the Senior Salaries Review Body review of our salaries.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is leading me into territory into which I should not stray in this debate.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

May we think about a recent case that the Committee considered? A Member might have had a private meeting, perhaps with another family member who was a businessman, and in which there was a discussion about funding and payment. During that meeting, the Member might have utilised his position as a Member, and that might have become public knowledge, although the meeting was private. I am sympathetic to where my hon. Friend wants to go, but I am bothered that we have not looked at this issue properly and I would like him to consider putting his point but—as the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), said—then allowing us to look at it carefully later, to ensure that we do not err.

[Mr Walker]

I will take that into consideration, and I acknowledge the spirit in which the point has been made.

[Oliver Heald]

May I return to the theme I was developing earlier, in what was described as a very long intervention? I shall try to be briefer this time. The commissioner suggests that some of the new rules might be split. We used to have rule 2, stating that the rules do not

“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,

whereas rule 16 said Members must not bring the House into disrepute, which was, in a sense, a mop-up rule. Matters are set out in a more coherent way now, but there is no real change.

[Mr Walker]

I disagree with my hon. Friend about that. The commissioner is clearly trying to give himself powers to investigate Members’ private and personal lives, which is why this amendment has been tabled.

The commissioner’s interpretation of a Member’s status is at odds with that of another regulatory body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which states in its consultations and press releases that a fundamental principle of its scheme is that MPs

“should be treated…as far as possible like other citizens.”

The various regulatory bodies that oversee and adjudicate on our activities cannot reasonably expect to have it both ways. The public now rightly demand that Members of Parliament should face the same rigours that they do in their daily lives. The flip-side of that must be that parliamentarians, “like other citizens”, also have the right to a private life and private space—and in this private space people will, on occasions, make mistakes.

It is in the nature of our job—this vocation—that if these mistakes are large enough, they will be picked up and reported by the press, with all the opprobrium, shame and upset that goes with having our private calamities played out on a national stage. I look back at the personal agonies that the former hon. Members for Croydon Central and Winchester went through in the last Parliament, and I shudder to think how much worse things would have been for them if the parliamentary commissioner, however well intentioned, had been conducting his own forensic investigation into their actions, dragging in family, friends and perhaps other aggravating parties. There would have been months and months of investigation, all in the name of protecting the notional honour of the House.

The Committee does not dismiss the possibility of such investigations. It offers a well-meaning but vague assurance on page 6 of its report that

“like the Commissioner, we do not think the Committee or the House should be drawn into judging a Member's purely private and personal relationships.”

Why is that sentence not worded more forcefully? Why does it equivocate when it could say that “the commissioner and the Committee will not allow the House to be drawn into judging a Member’s purely private and personal relationships”? Why is that assurance not given by the commissioner and the Committee? The reason, I believe, is that it cannot be given because the commissioner knows full well that, almost exclusively, personal scandals and misfortunes are where the action lies.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend’s amendment not create the same problem? If the matter in question were not only to relate to a Member’s conduct, but also affected their ability to be an MP—rank dishonesty falling short of crime, for example—the commissioner would be able to investigate. Does my hon. Friend’s amendment make any difference, therefore?

[Mr Walker]

In his usual helpful way, the broad-minded Leader of the House made it clear in his response to the consultation that he was not aware of any recent cases where a Member’s conduct in their purely private and personal life had been so outrageous that the House or the general public would have wanted action to be taken against the Member. Those pushing this proposal cannot come up with any sensible examples.

The Leader of the House has been in this place for almost 40 years, but while it seems he cannot think of anything worth investigating, the commissioner clearly can. That is why he is promoting this change to the current code of conduct.

[Mr Cash]

This issue boils down to how the provisions are drafted. No one has any serious doubt about the intentions and the parameters, but problems do arise. The code states that it does not

“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely”—

I emphasise that word—“private and personal lives”, or in the conduct of their wider lives. Rule 16, however, says:

“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage.”

Therefore, on the one hand we are told the code does not seek to “regulate”, yet on the other hand we are told Members shall “never” undertake certain actions. I do not think there is any real doubt about what is intended, but I am worried about the interpretation that might be drawn if this proposal is passed. That is the problem. This is more an issue of drafting than of intention.

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I appreciate that the Committee and the commissioner are at pains to point out that it is not their intention to create a “red top” charter. I accept that that may not be their intention, but the fact remains that real reputational threat to this place is contained in this flawed proposal.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend said he wanted an example. I did give him one, but he has not responded to it. It is a financial, not a lurid, example, and I would like him to consider it.

[Mr Walker]

The example given was fraud, and it was also extraordinarily tortuous.

The Leader of the House, whom I do not often pray in aid of my arguments—as he knows—has been here for 40 years and he cannot think of anything in that time that would have required this power to have been exercised. We in this place are brilliant at inventing new misdemeanours and crimes as sticks with which to beat ourselves.

[Mr Syms]

My hon. Friend talked about bed and the bottle. I have never been asked to go on a billionaire’s yacht, although it is something that one would perhaps look forward to, but some Members of this House do stay with important people when on holiday. Does he think that this proposal will give another hand to those who want MPs to have to declare where they are going on holiday?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend leads me into the final part of my speech. Let us be clear that however well intentioned the power the commissioner is seeking, it will mean that Members’ private and personal lives will be in the ambit of investigation. Their actions will be scrutinised by the commissioner and a subjective view will be taken of whether or not those actions could cause significant damage to the reputation of the House. Every sexual peccadillo, domestic dispute or unguarded cross word would lead to tabloid calls for the commissioner to take action—“Something must be done”, the headlines will cry. The commissioner argues that in the event of an undefined personal scandal, the House’s status would be diminished if it

“were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.”

In a sense, that sounds like a return, after 17 years, to “back to basics”. We know what a disaster that was; we had all these moral judgments applied to the activities of Members. The one example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did provide would be covered by criminal law in any case, so it is not relevant to this debate.

In conclusion, I am fully aware that Members of Parliament can do bad and unethical things in their capacity as Members of Parliament, which is why these standards and the code of conduct are so important. As importantly, I am also aware that people can do silly and stupid things regardless of who they are, because none of us was born an angel or a saint. So I strongly believe that the House should confine itself to worrying about the matters that directly pertain to the job of being an elected representative, and not those that relate to general human weakness or stupidity. For that reason, I urge the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, for whom I have a huge amount of time, and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) and for Mole Valley, of whom I am extraordinarily fond, despite our little spat this evening, to support my amendment. On this occasion, it is time that the House recognised that the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne is arguing for the virtuous and should carry the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Walker, do you intend to press your amendment to a Division?

[Mr Charles Walker]

I would be delighted if the Government would accept it, if they could, but otherwise I would like to press it to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Walker, do you intend to press this to a vote?

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do: one’s personal and private life is one’s personal and private life.

Amendment made: (a), at end, add

‘, subject to the following amendment: After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:

“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Nineteenth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 1579), and approves the revised Code of Conduct set out in the Annex to the Report, subject to the following amendment:

After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:

“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.

All-Party Groups

Resolved,

That

(1) this House agrees with the recommendations in the Twenty-first Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on Registration of Staff All-Party Groups (HC 1689); and

(2) accordingly the Resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989, 29 July 1998 and 7 February 2011, relating to the registration of interests be further amended by:

(a) leaving out paragraph 3 (f); and

(b) inserting a new paragraph 4:

“Holders of permanent passes as staff of All-Party Groups be required to register:

i. any paid employment for which they receive more than 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary; and

ii. any gift, benefit or hospitality they receive, if the gift, benefit or hospitality in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament and its value is over 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary in the course of a calendar year.”.—(Mr Barron.)

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The Government have made their position clear. We think the offer is generous but we have made it absolutely clear that no taxpayer money can be involved. I cannot add to what has already been said.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of a Mr Scott Venning and his company City Watch parking, a seemingly criminal organisation with shaven-headed enforcers who lift people’s cars and then extort money to return them?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend uses robust language. I know, because he has raised the subject before—it is a matter of deep concern—that he knows that the Protection of Freedoms Bill is currently in another place, and that when the Bill hits the statute book, hopefully in May, it will be an offence to clamp on private land and incidents of the sort that my hon. Friend has mentioned will simply be outlawed. In the meantime, I can only suggest that he uses his eloquence to try to get redress for his constituent from the offending company.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Following those stellar performances from the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House, may I gently remind colleagues that we are focusing on the business of the House for next week and the beginning of 2012?

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the activities of parking enforcement companies—particularly Citywatch and Securak—which could be likened to demanding money with menaces, racketeering and extortion? May I make a final plea on behalf of a constituent? Toyin Lawal’s car was pinched by Citywatch from a car park that it was not even licensed to patrol, and it wants eight grand to give it back to her. I want the police to go round and get her car back off these criminals.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s constituent is fortunate to have such a proactive Member of Parliament championing her interests in the House. He might know that legislation has now gone through making it illegal to clamp cars on private space. I think that it comes into effect in March next year.

Members’ Salaries

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is absolute agony that we are having this debate this evening after we have had such a fantastic and informed debate on Libya. It goes to prove that there is never, ever a good time to talk about MPs’ pay and conditions.

However, the debate comes under the heading “Boring but important”. Let us cast our minds back to May 2009, when this House and this democracy that we love so much went through a period of enormous upheaval. I remember that there were great protests outside Parliament—nothing to do with pay and expenses, but enormously voluminous protests. I used to stand in the yard listening to the protests and imagine what it must have been like at the Bastille 220 years earlier in 1789, with the hordes outside. I would close my eyes and think, “Will I get the piano wire or will I get the guillotine?” I think my constituents were rather wishing I would get both and they would both be very slow. It really was an appalling time for this country—this proud democracy brought low by something as innocuous as pay and expenses.

We all vowed in 2009 that we had learned our lessons. Indeed, in 2008 we had started the process of repair by, on 3 July, voting to remove responsibility for pay from our hands. The process of reform was in train. I took great relief, during the debates in 2008 and 2009, from the fact that at last we were not going to have these agonising evenings in the House, but here we are again, having another agonising evening.

We, as Members of Parliament, are brilliant at not only setting our own bear traps but then jumping into them. I feel that that is what we are doing tonight, because the motion has been introduced by the Executive. I know that MPs, both those who served from 2005 to 2010 and our new colleagues, are much chastened by what happened in 2009. We are reforming ourselves from within, and we are not actually as stupid as some people would have us believe. I have absolutely no desire or ambition to accept a 1% pay rise. All that I sincerely wish is that the Back Benchers of this place had been allowed to propose their own motion.

I understood that there was cross-party agreement between the Opposition, the party of government and our colleagues in government, the Liberal Democrats, and I thought there was a real desire and move for a Back-Bench motion that would allow us, as Back Benchers, to do the right thing by this country and our constituents by postponing the pay rise for two years. I am therefore saddened that the Executive have brought forward tonight’s motion. Much play has been made of the new politics, which is not about expediency because expediency gets us into such trouble. The motion is expedient and it lays a future bear trap for us. I wish that we were not here, once again, discussing the tedious subject of our pay and conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say what he said that he had said about my right hon. Friend—I heard something quite different—but we shall have to look at the Official Report to be sure.

Once IPSA has control of Members’ salaries, it will be entirely independent and it will not be for me or for anyone else to tell it how to do its job. Independent assessment is right—we all agree about that. In principle, Members of Parliament should not vote on their own pay. But in a House that does not flinch from having an opinion on the remuneration of others, we cannot just ignore the perception or consequences of an increase of our own pay.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not think that a single Member of Parliament wants this wretched 1% pay rise. What we wanted was the chance as Members of Parliament to do the right thing and table our own motion to decline it. What we are getting, I am afraid, in a robust speech from the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, is Executive posturing at our expense and it does him no favours at all.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I think that the House has been given the opportunity to decide whether it wants that 1% pay increase, and it must make that decision.