Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

They are those who are representative of the full range of the public. Often people who are appointed to some of these committees will tend to be—how shall I put it?—the great and the good, who are not necessarily entirely representative of the full range of the public. That is what I understood by the phrase, “genuine members of the public”. Of course, there will be strong opinions on both sides of this debate, which is why the Committee stage will be so important.

Let me now address the amendments that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is likely to table. First, I welcome his contribution and that of all Members on the committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). It is probably fair to say that the Government may not have put this Bill before the House had it not been for their hard work and persistence. The proposals of the hon. Member for Richmond Park manage to avoid some of the problems associated with the Government’s Bill. As he said in his intervention, there would be no issues about unfairly allowing a petition when an MP is imprisoned for protest; about having to debate the length of suspension from this place; or about the independence of any recall trigger mechanism. His likely amendments would allow for the trigger to be in the hands of the people, and there is a simplicity to that proposal that is, of course, attractive.

The hon. Gentleman’s proposals, however, run into trouble when we assess the potential effect on the constitutional role of Members of Parliament. If we accept that the job of an MP is to be a representative, not a delegate, that has consequences for where we stand in this debate. MPs on both sides of the House need to be able to sometimes make difficult decisions. Sometimes they have to fulfil roles in government and there is a risk that the hon. Gentleman’s likely amendments could challenge that.

For example, the hon. Gentleman’s model of recall—the pure model—has the potential to give enormous power to well-funded, wealthy groups and organisations that could run concerted campaigns to pressure MPs to act in a certain way.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. We need look no further than the United States, where the Koch brothers use their multibillion-dollar war chest for no other partisan reason than to get rid of individuals who do not agree with their warped sense of the world.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which reinforces a concern felt by many—not just in this House, but outside it—that without proper regulation a system of pure recall could be subject to abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I could not agree more. That is precisely why I believe that we need a proper recall system—not some shenanigans conveying the impression that they give people recall powers without actually giving them any power at all—that would give Members, such as my hon. Friend and many others, a permanent implied mandate. In a few moments, I will explain why recall will help to give dignity and to restore nobility to this place, but if he thinks that I have not addressed his concerns properly, I invite him to intervene again.

Recall would allow people in extreme circumstances—where a clear majority of them have lost confidence in their MP—to remove their MP between elections. It would give people a sense of ownership over their democracy, which would help in and of itself.

Recall is not a new or radical idea. It exists in various forms in about 30 countries on five continents, including Poland, Canada, Germany, Japan, India, South Korea, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. It has existed in the US for more than 100 years, and in Switzerland for even longer. It is a good idea—it works—and it is great that the mainstream parties have finally accepted it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about recall empowering voters. In practice, would it not do what it does in the United States, which is to empower wealthy individuals who are not happy with what their representative is doing to mobilise against them? It would empower wealthy individuals, such as the hon. Gentleman, to influence events in a way that my ordinary constituents and I cannot?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will explain why such concerns are groundless during my speech, but I will make one point, partly in response to the Opposition spokesman. Concerns about expenditure during the recall process are a matter for regulations; the amendments that my colleagues and I seek to introduce would not tamper with the Government’s proposed regulations on expenses. That separate technical issue can be very easily addressed.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but that is not the point. Expenditure limits can be put on the recall election, but the campaigning in the lead-up to such an election would undermine the representative in getting their constituents—

[Douglas Carswell]

Trust the voters.

[Mr Jones]

This is not about trusting the voters, but about putting influence in the hands of a small group of very wealthy individuals. If the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), with the wealth he has, wanted to shift a Member of Parliament, he could do it.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman takes a very dim view of his electorate if he thinks that that is so easy. Irrespective of that, the two-month petition stage before a referendum will be regulated, so his cost arguments simply do not apply.

[Mr Jones]

What happens in practice in the United States is that individuals who take against a policy or a state or national representative can use their tremendous wealth to use a campaign in the lead-up to the recall election to undermine such a representative. The idea that that is somehow empowering the voters is not the case. Recall empowers very wealthy individuals who could then—

[Douglas Carswell]

You don’t trust the voters.

[Mr Jones]

I do trust the electorate. The hon. Gentleman should stop chuntering from a sedentary position. The fact is that recall will give influence over who the Member of Parliament is not to the majority of the electors but to a small group of very wealthy individuals.

[Zac Goldsmith]

To my knowledge, in the United States there are no limits on expenditure and on broadcasters; in this country, we have limits on both. Even during the 100 years of recall in that wild west environment of the United States, there have been only 20 successes out of 40 attempts. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments simply do not match the experience of recall anywhere in the world. They are complete nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

In one moment, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

In dozens of democracies around the world that use recall, it is hardly ever used. In the US, where recall has existed for 100 years—I have already made this point—it has been used only 40 times, and only 20 times successfully. California is the most active recall state in the United States. Only one governor in 100 years has ever been recalled, and there is not a single example of a successful vexatious recall campaign.

I know that other hon. Members worry that recall might somehow turn us into delegates and no longer representatives—a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—but that is not realistic. Voters care about a wide range of issues, and it is rare for recall to be motivated only by one issue. People might disapprove of a Member’s position on one issue, but support them on a range of other issues. It is rare for one issue to be a deal breaker, and the history of recalls shows that that is very rare—I cannot think of an example of one policy issue being the cause and effect of a successful recall.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Gun control.

[Zac Goldsmith]

There are no examples of that. There are examples of attempted recall on the back of gun control, but not a successful one. It is probably true, however, that where recall is possible MPs will think twice about making undeliverable pledges, which is not a bad thing. It is also likely that where pledges have to be broken, MPs would feel obliged to engage extensively with constituents to explain why that was necessary, and that is also a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of constituents around the country have been sent the same template letter from Liberal Democrat Members, and been told that this measure will cost too much. I saw one of those letters a couple of days ago. Constituents have been told:

“Just one real Recall petition per constituency per Parliament could cost the taxpayer £100 million.”

That figure is completely bonkers. It inflates the Government’s own impact assessment by 300%, and assumes that each Member of this place will face the full recall—not just the 5%—at least once in every Parliament. If 650 Members of this place face recall in one Parliament, the cost is the very least of our problems.

Of course there are arguments against recall, but at their core those are arguments against democracy itself and against all elections. If those arguments prevail, I believe that we will have lost a golden opportunity, not just for voters but for us as Members of this great place. Recall would empower people to hold their MPs to account, and that ubiquitous moan that we have all heard—“You’re all the same; there’s no point voting and nothing will ever change”—would no longer make any sense. The mere existence of recall would give each of us an added, implied continuous mandate, and embolden us as a Parliament. I do not say that it would fix our democracy, but it would be a very big start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman might be on to something, but I think that it might have to be called a relative renaissance. Polls have shown that the Conservative party’s figures have not increased much, if at all, in Scotland, although they are above those of the Labour party. It is not really much of a renaissance at all. However, I do not want to be distracted by the political ill weather for Labour and the Conservatives north of the border, because that is not the matter before the House this afternoon.

I hope that there is much agreement on the idea of a recall Bill, but the disagreement lies in whether we should have an open recall Bill or the more prescribed recall Bill that the Government propose.

I want to say quite a bit about the Government’s attitude and approach to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was absolutely right to say that among the problems with the Government’s Bill are its reliance on the Standards and Privileges Committee and the justice of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had looked into that matter, and it did not surprise me that there was such a justice differential between those inside the gilded circle and those outwith it.

The proposal for a 10% threshold is dangerous. A safer mechanism for recall would involve a 5% threshold, followed by 20% and then a simple majority in a referendum. This process should be an extension of democracy and, if we get to that point, there should be a secret ballot—or an Australian ballot, as it was originally called. The prescribed route also carries the danger that it mentions trigger conditions, such as a jailing. Mentioning the conditions would make a recall more likely because it would light up the minds of those in journalistic circles, who would start to crank up the machinery that could lead to what history suggests might sometimes be the wrong steps being taken.

I am thinking in particular of Terry Fields, who was jailed for 60 days in 1991 and was probably released to a hero’s welcome, as indeed was Tommy Sheridan in Scotland, although he was not an elected politician when he was also jailed for non-payment of the poll tax. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made an important point about the Cyprus situation in the 1950s. He suggested that Members should be given a degree of latitude and have the freedom to speak their minds, because sometimes an uncomfortable truth is a great servant to us all.

The open route would allow us more easily to ignore some of the many reasons that the establishment might see as triggers for a recall, and allow us to take a more open approach. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said in an intervention on the opening speech, it should be no longer MPs who define their own behaviour, but society at large. The open method allows the recall mechanism to be a dynamic process that takes account of circumstances. Some might feel that lying to the country or to Parliament to take the nation to war might reasonably be open to recall but that would not be included in legislation by the Government.

The overarching point is that recall should be a sanction of last resort. It should not be used much, and hopefully it will not be used much—it should be little needed and little used—but it is a sanction that should be available. At the stage we are at now in our ever-evolving democratic countries—evolving due to social media, certainly—the proposals before us would provide another arm of participatory democracy.

Whoever instigates a recall and whatever mechanism triggers it, it should have a reasonable chance of success. I mentioned the example of Terry Fields. He would have been re-elected anyway, and to use the recall mechanism against an MP who is clearly going to come back with a thumping majority would be an abuse. It should have a real chance of succeeding in removing the MP. As has been said, perhaps an MP removal mechanism is what it is. Therefore, and perhaps with the fear of the vexatious recall in mind as well, we might consider requiring a bond or deposit—some sum so that those engaged in this have to put some money where their mouths are, as do those who engage in elections or by-elections, in order for them genuinely to demonstrate to the wider public that this is not a whim.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but that would not stop a wealthy individual. It would not stop the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for example, as he could obviously afford to lose his deposit, and in the United States it did not stop people such as the Koch brothers, who put £2 million into the Colorado recall of the state Senators who introduced gun control. I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am not sure this would stop big business and big interests.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman might be correct in some of that, but we do live in an imperfect world. All I would say to him is that this removes many of the imperfections and is an improvement on the current situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

I take that point on board. For the entire period during which I have been involved with the Conservative party, I have for ever been hearing how old, out of touch and ludicrously right wing many of its members are. It was said that they would never select anyone to stand for Parliament who did not accord with their views. It turns out that whatever their views—in times past, if they had very strong views on capital punishment, they may have said in advance that they would only choose a candidate who believed in capital punishment—they eventually selected someone completely different, because they respected that person and wanted to back them. I put it to the hon. Lady that I am not sure that the many people who have been mentioned today would be disowned by their constituents for taking brave and unpopular decisions. They are quite likely to be backed in their local area, but I recognise that we are taking a risk, which is why I suggested a sunset clause.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That may possibly be the case. However, if a very well-financed individual or organisation campaigned against a Member on subjects such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Member would have to go through the recall process. Even if the MP were re-elected, they would have had to spend all their time on that. I am sure a lot of people would be put off from raising principled issues that have changed life in this country for the better.

NATO Summit

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the NATO conference, but before I do so, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Jim Dobbin, who died suddenly this weekend. Jim gave his life to public service. He worked hard for his constituents, he loved this House of Commons and he contributed hugely to all its work. With his expertise in microbiology, he also did outstanding work in this House championing vaccines for children in the developing world. Though we may not have agreed on everything, we did agree about the important contribution of faith in politics—although, unlike Jim, I have to say I am not expecting to get a knighthood from the Pope, which Jim received, and much deserved it was, too. He will be missed by us all, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.

We have also heard this morning that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their second baby. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating them on behalf of the whole country on this fantastic news and wishing them well in the months ahead.

The NATO summit in Wales saw the successful coming together of this vital alliance. Everyone could see its unity, its resolve and its determination to meet and overcome all the threats to our security. I want to thank the local council in Newport, the Welsh Assembly, the First Minister, the Secretary of State, our armed services and police and all those who worked so hard to deliver a safe, secure and successful summit. It was, I think, the biggest gathering of world leaders that has ever taken place in our country. Most of all, I want to thank the Welsh people for their incredibly warm welcome. They did our United Kingdom proud.

The summit reached important conclusions on Ukraine, on defence spending and the reform of NATO, on countering Islamist extremism, on the future of Afghanistan and on supporting our military and their families. I want briefly to take each one in turn.

First, on Ukraine, we welcome the ceasefire that has been in place since Friday. At the NATO summit, I chaired a meeting with President Poroshenko and the leaders of France, Italy, Germany and America to agree that what was needed was the implementation of a proper peace plan that respected Ukraine’s territorial integrity. NATO sent a clear message to Russia that what President Putin was doing was illegal and indefensible. We stand firmly behind Ukraine’s right to make its own decisions and not to have them dictated by Russian soldiers trampling on Ukraine’s sovereign soil.

We will continue our efforts to support Ukraine, including by providing financial assistance to improve its command, control and communication capabilities. Today’s new sanctions from the European Union will further ramp up the economic cost to Russia. They will make it harder for its banks and its energy and defence companies to borrow money. They will widen the ban on selling so-called dual goods, such as machinery and computer equipment, which could be used for military as well as civilian purposes. They will also prohibit the provision of services for the exploration and production of shale, deepwater and Arctic oil.

Secondly, the summit reached an important agreement on defence spending. One of the problems with NATO is that only a small number of countries have achieved the commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. As a result, the share of spending by the largest country, the United States of America, continues remorselessly upwards and now accounts for around 70% of the total. That is not sustainable. The summit addressed that by agreeing the responsibility of those countries that have not achieved 2%. The conclusions were very clear about that. Through the Wales pledge, every NATO member spending less than 2% has now agreed to halt any decline in defence spending, to aim to increase it in real terms as GDP grows and to move towards 2% within a decade.

There was also a second target—namely, that a fifth of all defence budgets should be dedicated to major new equipment, because what matters most is having military assets that we can actually deploy. Here in Britain, we have the second largest defence budget in NATO and the biggest in the European Union. We have taken long-term and often difficult decisions to put our defence budget on a sustainable footing, and the fruits of that are now coming through.

We are equipping all three of our services with the best and most modern military hardware that money can buy. This includes a £3.5 billion contract for Scout armoured vehicles, which I announced on Friday—the largest such order in over three decades. [Interruption.] It includes new fleets of joint strike fighter and Voyager refuelling aircraft; 22 new A400M transport aircraft; new Astute hunter-killer submarines; Type 45 destroyers and Type 26 frigates; and HMS Queen Elizabeth, our brand new aircraft carrier—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Labour.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “Labour”. He might remember that Labour left us a £38 billion defence black hole.

At NATO, I announced that our second new carrier—

[Mr Jones]

We ordered them.

[The Prime Minister]

It is all very well to order them, but they actually have to be paid for. In a nutshell, that is the difference between a socialist and a Conservative. They dream about having money; we actually raise it and spend it.

The hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that I announced at the NATO summit that that our second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will also be brought into service. This will ensure that we always have one carrier available 100% of the time. This investment in our national security, our prosperity and our place in the world will transform our ability to project power globally, whether independently or together with our allies.

Turning to the wider reform of NATO, after the end of the cold war, NATO stood down its highest readiness force. At this summit, we decided to reverse that decision and scale up our readiness to respond to any threat. At the same time, we agreed to do more to build the capacity of other nations outside NATO, to help them with their defence capabilities. A new multinational spearhead force will be formed, and it will be deployable anywhere in the world within two to five days. That is vital in underlining our article 5 obligations to collective defence, and the UK will support that by providing a battle group and a brigade headquarters. We will also contribute 3,500 personnel to exercises in eastern Europe between now and the end of 2015, as part of NATO’s efforts to ensure a persistent presence on our eastern flank.

On capacity building, NATO has a vital role in helping other countries with their capacity to defend themselves against all threats, including terrorist threats. When we consider how many of the threats that NATO countries, including the UK, now face from the middle east, north Africa and elsewhere, we see that this capacity building is becoming ever more important. It was a key priority for the UK at the summit that we made progress. NATO will now undertake capacity-building missions, beginning in Georgia and Jordan, with the offer of a training mission for Iraq as soon as the new Iraqi Government are in place.

Next, the alliance was clear about the scale of the threat from Islamist extremism, and we agreed that we must use all the instruments at our disposal—humanitarian, diplomatic and military—to squeeze this barbaric terrorist organisation out of existence. We should be clear about what needs to happen: we will continue to support the Kurds, including by providing them with arms and training their troops; we will work to support a new and representative Iraqi Government, which we hope to see in place later this week; and the fight against ISIL must be led by the Iraqis themselves, but we will continue to encourage countries in the region to support this effort and to engage allies across the world. We will proceed carefully and methodically, drawing together the partners we need, to implement a comprehensive plan. Earlier today, I spoke to Ban Ki-moon to seek support at the United Nations for a broad-based international effort to confront ISIL, and I will be working on building that international support when I attend the United Nations General Assembly later this month.

Turning to Afghanistan, we called on the two presidential candidates to work together to deliver a peaceful election outcome and a new Government as swiftly as possible. They made a statement during the conference that they would make those endeavours, and it is vital that that comes about. The summit paid tribute to the extraordinary sacrifice made by all our armed forces in driving al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and training the Afghan security forces to take control of their security. We reaffirmed our long-term commitment to supporting a peaceful, prosperous and stable Afghanistan, including through our development conference in London in November.

Finally, as our troops return home from Afghanistan, it is right that we do all we can to support them and their families. In Britain, we have the military covenant—a pledge of commitment between the Government and our military—and we are the first British Government to write this covenant into the law of the land. We have made it ever more real by taking a series of measures, including doubling the operational allowance; introducing free higher and further education scholarships; investing £200 million in helping our service personnel to buy homes; increasing the rate of council tax relief; signing up every single local council in our country in support of the military; and giving unprecedented support to military charities.

At the summit, we took our military covenant internationally, with every NATO member signing up to a new armed forces declaration, setting out their commitment to support their military and enabling all of us to learn from each other about how we can best do that. We will continue to do everything possible to look after those who serve our country and whose sacrifices keep us safe. This, I believe, was a successful NATO conference. It proved that this organisation is as important to our future security as it has been to the past, and I commend this statement to the House.

Local Growth Deals

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I commend my hon. Friend, who has been an absolutely indefatigable campaigner for Portsmouth. That resulted in the Portsmouth city deal, which, as she has rightly said, involved the release of Ministry of Defence land that was not being used to make it available for the marine engineering businesses whose future is very bright across the south coast, and particularly in Portsmouth.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The devolution of finance must not only be seen to be accountable but actually be accountable. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had about the appointment of Paul Woolston, the chair of the North East LEP, who has now been appointed to Middleton Enterprises, a company run by Jeremy Middleton, a well-known Conservative who is also on the LEP investment board? We also learned last week that the chief executive is now working for a Middleton company. Have the Minister or his Department had any discussions about this?

[Greg Clark]

Of course, I meet the local enterprise partnerships—all of them—regularly to discuss the kinds of deals we are announcing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the local authority leaders work very closely together—in fact, his own local authority leader, Simon Henig, is the chair of the combined authority—and that they are democratically elected, and I know that they make sure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I have no idea whether it is the same one or not; that will be a matter for Lord Carlile to deal with. He has served this country extremely well in these sensitive areas, and the hon. Gentleman should take account of that.

The whole problem is that the critics of these measures fail to take into account two things. First, although there can of course be qualifications under PII, including redactions and witnesses giving their evidence behind a screen, the core of the secret material cannot be revealed to the plaintiff without it being revealed to the whole world. It is not just a question of the plaintiff hearing it. Those of us who are privileged to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee have seen examples of the intelligence material that would have had to be revealed if certain cases had not been settled at huge cost to the taxpayer.

In response to a comment by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I must point out that this is not just a question of the identity of an individual agent or officer being revealed. It goes far beyond that, because that person could be protected by a screen or by being given anonymity in court in some other way. It is also a question of evidence involving operating methods, for example. The material could reveal how the intelligence agencies quite lawfully obtain their evidence.

It is worth reminding those who are going to vote against the Government how thankful we are that there have been no further terrorist outrages in this country since the 7/7 bombings. In every year since then, major terrorist plots have been prevented by the work of the intelligence agencies, and much of that work relied on obtaining highly sensitive information, sometimes from individuals who were not intelligence officers but who came from the very organisations and communities in which the plots were being hatched. If the methods by which such information is obtained cannot be kept secret, no one should come to the House saying how much they regret some future terrorist incident if that incident has taken place because the agencies have been prevented from getting the support and co-operation that they need.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I want to make one other point, if I may.

The other element that critics of the Bill do not take into account is that much of the information we are talking about can relate to misunderstandings on the part of the terrorists or criminals, who sometimes do not realise when their conversations are being listened to or when their property has been entered under lawful warrants and information obtained. They do not realise how stupid some of the precautions are that they take to protect their evil plans. That kind of information cannot be released in court. The plaintiff might be an innocent person, but if the information is released in court, it becomes available to the whole world, including the terrorist organisations and criminals themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brazier]

This has been a high quality debate, starting with a typically rigorous speech by the Minister without Portfolio. It has been particularly noticeable that, while there have been strong speeches on both sides, all three Members who have had responsibility for this matter—the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who made an outstanding contribution—took the view that we have to have this kind of legislation, and that the amendments would not be helpful. I want to put forward a couple of underlying reasons why I believe firmly that we need the Bill and that the amendments—some of them, anyway—would wreck it, and then delve a little into the historical background. I am concerned that the civil liberties lobby is just a little bit too free in its claims about British judicial traditions.

The one voice that does not seem to have been heard anywhere in the debate is that of the intelligence service. Baroness Manningham-Buller said:

“At the moment there is no justice at all in civil cases where individuals sue the Government for compensation, claiming, say, mistreatment or complicity in torture. Because the secret material held by the authorities cannot be used in court, the Government is forced to settle without a judge examining the merits of the claim. This is immensely damaging”—

immensely damaging—

“to the reputation of the Government and the intelligence and security agencies which cannot defend themselves; to the taxpayer who has increasingly to stump up millions in compensation; and perhaps most importantly of all to the claimants who, while they may receive large cash settlements, do not get their cases heard and judgment reached.”

I have a further concern. A friend of mine, former SAS officer Colonel Richard Williams, who has allowed me to quote his name in the press, has recently been attacked in one of our newspapers with allegations of brutality. The allegations are lies from beginning to end. Bizarrely, they start with the claim that he is being investigated for wrongdoing in Iraq. As he has never been investigated in any shape or form, that is a lie before we even get into the specific allegations. But let us suppose just for a moment that somebody was to turn those allegations into a court case. The circumstances of the operation concerned in the allegations involve some extremely secret material—where the tip-offs came from, modus operandi and so on. Now, it is quite possible that this man, who has been decorated for gallantry and leadership twice and badly wounded—indeed, he had another operation for his wounds only last year—could find himself facing a court case while being extremely reluctant to use certain material in his own defence, because no procedure is available under which he could do so without the risk of breaching secrecy.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that this concerns not just the sources of intelligence, but the operating systems of troops on the ground? If anything got into the public domain—for example, about operations in Iraq by special forces—it would limit future operations, if those tactics became known to our opponents.

[Mr Brazier]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I used the phrase “modus operandi”. This brave officer led our special forces operation for so long in Iraq and did so well at a time when, frankly, other parts of our military operation were failing—the verdict of history is that sadly they did largely fail. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is not only about sources, but about modus operandi, but there is now a further wrinkle. Because the Government have committed to much more of what is generally called “upstream intervention”—putting small numbers of people into areas where they are not in charge or running the show, but simply mentoring, the dodgiest end of which will inevitably go to special forces—this is not only about our modus operandi, but about whether our relationships with host countries, which in almost every case will, I believe, do better in a range of different ways with advice from our special forces, will be possible at all.

I shall move on to the second part of my comments. In Committee, I listened again and again to hon. Gentlemen talking about ancient British traditions of justice. I have listened again and have been reading some of the contributions from the human rights lobby. Although they are perfectly entitled to their points of view and I am willing to listen to them with respect, they cannot claim that the current position of the civil rights lobby, which is reflected in some of these amendments, is in any way rooted in the traditions of British justice.

Let me quote what Lord Denning said in a deportation case some 40 years ago. He was speaking on the Hosenball case, which involved the deportation of, ironically, an American journalist. The case was decided unanimously in favour of the Home Secretary, but nevertheless Lord Denning felt that he ought to put some extra remarks on the record, just to remind people where the balance of British justice lay:

“But this is no ordinary case. It is a case in which national security is involved, and our history shows that, when the state itself is endangered, our cherished freedoms may have to take second place. Even natural justice itself may suffer a set-back. Time after time Parliament has so enacted and the courts have loyally followed.”

Time is brief and others are waiting to speak, so I will not go back to the earlier Liversidge v. Anderson case during the second world war, where by a 4:1 majority the locking up of everybody who happened to be German, with no procedure at all, was upheld. Suffice it to say, however, that this was the continuous view of the courts all the way through until the Belmarsh case. I will give one further quote. Ironically, I would like to quote Lord Hoffmann, one of the judges who found against the Government in the Belmarsh case, on the rather narrow grounds rooted in the then brand-new human rights provisions. In 2001, he commented in a lengthy judgment in the Rehman case:

“I shall deal first with the separation of powers… What is meant by ‘national security’ is a question of construction and therefore a question of law within the jurisdiction of the Commission, subject to appeal. But there is no difficulty about what ‘national security’ means. It is the security of the United Kingdom and its people. On the other hand, the question of whether something is ‘in the interests’ of national security is not a question of law. It is a matter of judgment and policy. Under the constitution of the United Kingdom and most other countries, decisions as to whether something is or is not in the interests of national security are not a matter for judicial decision. They are entrusted to the executive.”

The concessions that the Government have already made, even without going down the route of amendment 30, go much further than any court would have required 10 or more years ago. Whatever the claims of the human rights lobby, the British judicial system always used to understand the vital demands of our national security, and I urge the Government not to give any further ground.

Electoral Registration

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Lords has quite rightly rejected this Government’s attempt to gerrymander the new boundaries in their favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should concentrate on getting electoral registration up, so that when we redraw the boundaries, it will be done on the basis of the most accurate figures possible?

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with that point, which I will move on to. The relationship between the boundary review and the number of people registered to vote—the basis on which we calculate boundaries—is an important issue. As it stands, the boundary review would exacerbate the problem, not simply because of under-registration, but because of the point in the electoral cycle at which that review would be conducted, with the next one being in December 2015.

I worry that individual registration threatens to make the situation worse, which is why I have argued that we should base our boundaries on adult population, not numbers of registered voters. Whether or not we go down that route, there is a need massively to improve voter registration, because if we do not, we risk creating a US-style democracy, with huge under-registration that excludes the disadvantaged and disengaged and focuses elections on the needs of the more privileged, so poisoning our politics.

I am sure that many measures will be proposed by my hon. Friends, but I want to concentrate on young people. From my election campaign, I can think of many examples of speaking to young people on the doorstep. At the outset of the conversation, it was clear that they had no intention of voting and that they would never have been on the electoral roll had it not been for their parents, but in many cases—the marked register confirms this—after that conversation and having engaged with the issues, they voted. That vote would otherwise have been denied them. The Government need to focus specifically on imaginative ways to ensure the effective registration of young people—working with schools, using social media and considering other ways to address that group.

I want to talk particularly about students. Not all students are young, but the vast majority are, and given the impact of Government policy on mature student entry, an even greater proportion of students will be young people in future. Many of them are worryingly disillusioned with democratic politics. The Liberal Democrats’ broken pledge on tuition fees—this is not a party point, but none of them is here to listen; it is of some concern that that great reforming party has chosen not to engage in the debate or to show any interest in enhancing electoral registration—has not simply damaged their party; it has damaged trust in politics for a whole generation of young people.

Both Sheffield’s great universities are in my constituency, with 32,000 of their students living there. They live there for at least 31 weeks a year, and many of them for 52 weeks; it is their main place of residence. They contribute to the economy and life of the city, and they have a right to have their voice heard in elections. At the university of Sheffield, there is currently block registration of all eligible students in university accommodation, but that is threatened by the legislation on individual voter registration. I assume that the Government do not think that our universities are guilty of electoral fraud, so I question the need to rule out block registration.

Even if that argument is not accepted, there is a need to mitigate that policy’s impact. The former finance officer of Sheffield university students union made the point about the difficulties of individual voter registration for students very forcefully. He said:

“When students first arrive at University and live in halls, amongst all the other things going on, registering to vote often isn’t a priority and it is comforting to know that it’s often done automatically. If this is changed then it would become another form to fill in during the whirlwind first few weeks away from home and some students, particularly those not engaged in democracy will not be registered.”

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ‘, for’ in line 10 and insert—

‘(1) In section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (qualification for jury service)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (c) (but not the “and” after it),

(b) omit subsection (2), and

(c) in subsection (3), for “Part 2 of the Schedule” substitute “Schedule 1”.

(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (the title to which becomes “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”, with the title to Part 1 becoming “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and the title to Part 2 becoming “Other Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”)’.

My amendment would make a minor technical change to the amendments the Bill makes to the Juries Act 1974. It would remove the term “mentally disordered persons” from section 1 of the Act and tidy up the cross-referencing between section 1 and the list of those disqualified for jury service in schedule 1. The amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).

Specifically, the references to “Mentally disordered persons” in section 1 of the 1974 Act will be removed and further provisions made in section 1 consequential to that. That will leave the section so worded as to provide that those persons listed in schedule 1 to the 1974 Act will be disqualified from jury service. The title of schedule 1 to that Act will be amended to read “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”. The headings to parts I and II of schedule 1 are amended accordingly, from “Mentally disordered persons” to “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and from “Persons disqualified” to “Other persons disqualified for jury service” respectively. The substantive change that the Bill makes to the 1974 Act, which is to remove the disqualification on service as a juror from those who voluntarily receive treatment in the community for a mental health disorder, remains the same.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I support the amendment. It will not change the Bill’s original wording to a great extent, but the language implications are very important. We must ensure that we deal with people who suffer from mental illness without the stigma of titles, so this small amendment is important. Clause 2 is also very important. Since we started discussing the Bill, I have received numerous e-mails and correspondence about it. A solicitor wrote to me to say that although she practises in court every day, she cannot be a juror because she is currently undergoing treatment for a mental health condition. The amendment would make a small change to the language, but I think it is important for the wider debate and for the wider implications of the Bill to ensure that we end discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I support the amendment and welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I want to raise a point that I do not think is covered by the Bill but which is associated with the thought: whether someone who has or has had a mental health condition and who feels that they would not be capable of serving as a juror at a particular time can say so and whether that would be accepted by the court. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might not be able to answer straight away, but I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know later, perhaps in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) not only on selecting this subject for his private Member’s Bill but on eloquently arguing its case throughout its parliamentary stages. He can rightly congratulate himself—of course, he will feel in need of some congratulations in Croydon after yesterday’s by-election result—on arguing so strongly for it. As a member of the small club of individuals who have got a private Member’s Bill passed by the House—I hope to welcome him to it—I know about the hard work that has to go into steering a Bill through this House. He was right to thank the staff, who I think will not be encouraging him to put in for the ballot in future given the amount of work that they have done.

The Bill should be supported because it gets rid of anachronistic legislative provisions. The provision on the disqualification of Members of Parliament has changed very little since 1886. The only thing that has changed is the description of who has to draw up the report for you, Mr Speaker. Possibly some of the language has been modified over the years, but in effect the same provision still applies.

Another issue is jury service. The existing provisions stigmatise those who are receiving treatment for mental illness by saying that they can practise as a solicitor or a barrister but cannot serve on a jury. That makes no sense at all. The important provision about company directorships has not received a great deal of coverage during the passage of the Bill, but it will make a difference to company directors who suffer from mental illness.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is important not only for those provisions but for the broader message that it sends out about the view of this House and of society about mental illness. I, too, pay tribute to the organisations that he mentioned, which have campaigned and worked very hard not only on making sure that there is support for the Bill but on helping to ensure that the stigma around mental health is eradicated. Will the Bill in itself do that? No, it will not—I do not think that for one minute—but I hope that it will show, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this House is determined to ensure that mental health stigma becomes a thing of the past.

It will take time to change people’s attitudes, but the debate in this House on 14 June and the passage of the Bill show that mental illness is on the political radar and will not go away. I encourage the House to continue the debate because our recent debates show that this is an issue that we should talk about. Mental illness is often not prioritised in terms of resources or in the workplace because it is not talked about. Let us hope that we will continue to talk openly about mental illness, not as something that is an impediment to people making a full contribution to public life or to their own personal life and development, but as something that, with effective treatment and support, allows individuals to make a proper and rightful contribution to society.

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central again for bringing the Bill forward and congratulate him on the way in which he has done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with that point, but there is no difference between that example and a Member who has a stroke and goes into a long-term vegetative state. There is no provision to remove such a Member. The Bill is just saying that mental illness should be on a par with other medical conditions.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with that point. I am merely using this opportunity to ensure that people know exactly what the Bill would do and to check whether there are potential anomalies. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the same situation applies to people with other conditions and that there should perhaps be no difference between them.

Another anomaly that may arise is that somebody could stand for Parliament and continue as a Member of Parliament who may not be eligible to vote because of the existing regulations on voting. As this is a Third Reading debate, I must talk only about what is in the Bill, rather than what should be in the Bill, but I hope that you will allow me to say in passing, Mr Speaker, that perhaps the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central in this field is not yet done. Although I support the Bill, it might create anomalies that we have to come back to on another occasion. I therefore hope that this is a work in progress.

I am not sure whether the provisions on juries deal with somebody who has just been released from being sectioned or who ought to have been sectioned but has not been because nobody knows about their condition. Perhaps the Bill might have been better if it had included an additional time period for such people. I am not sure whether the lack of such a period will cause a problem. The point has been well made throughout the debate that mental illness is not necessarily permanent or constant, but safeguards need to be in place to limit the exposure of those with recent conditions and those who have perhaps not been identified.

The proposals on company directors cover the model articles of association for normal companies and right-to-manage companies. Unless I have missed something, which is not impossible, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a company from using the old provisions in its articles of association if it chooses to deviate from the model articles of association. Will companies that are already in existence be affected by the Bill? If so, and if it has an immediate effect, what will happen if a company has already invoked this particular part of their articles of association from the model version and is in the middle of proceedings? If the Bill affects only new companies, does that mean that the 2.5 million companies that are already registered with Companies House will not be covered? It is important that we deal with the model articles of association because they are the default position, but have we missed something with regard to individual articles of association? What happens if a company has only one director and they have the most serious long-term mental health condition?

I support my hon. Friend—the whole House should support and congratulate him—but there are anomalies in the Bill, and the Bill might create even more. I hope the House can tackle those in future to ensure that we do what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intend, which is to give the best possible opportunities to people with mental health problems, who for far too long have been unfairly discriminated against under the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and to make one final point. I have a very high regard for my hon. Friend. As he said, we do not agree on every issue, but he is an excellent Member of this House. He made two points and I thought it was worth making one further point in response. He asked about the value of repealing legislation if it has never been used. There is a danger with the law as it currently stands of an hon. Member with a health condition being reluctant to seek medical treatment because of the consequences—the risk of losing their job.

The Speaker’s Conference recommended that a Select Committee might look at how the wider issue of the lack of constituents’ representation if their MP has a serious mental or physical health condition is addressed beyond the informal arrangements to which the Minister referred.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is a problem because, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) said, I think most parties will put informal arrangements in place, as they do for MPs who suffer from long-term physical conditions, or those who take holidays on reality TV shows in Australia.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I shall start by declaring two interests. First, I am the president of the Chester-le-Street branch of Mind in my constituency. Secondly, I have suffered in the past from depression and still occasionally have what I call my “black dog” days, although I now know how to deal with them, thanks to the help that I have received over the years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on introducing the Bill. I also congratulate—as did the hon. Member for Broxbourne—Lord Stevenson of Coddenham on his tireless work in this area. I look forward to the hon. Member for Croydon Central joining an exclusive club, of which I am a member, when the Bill becomes an Act. It is difficult for a Back-Bench Member to get a Bill enacted into law, and they need to do a great deal of work, not only on the Bill’s preparation but on ensuring that they are on top of all the issues. Back Benchers do not have an army of civil servants to help them. When I introduced my Bill, which became the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004, I would certainly have struggled without the help of my dedicated researcher.

Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I have had a very positive experience since I spoke on 14 June about my mental illness. I have received thousands of e-mails, letters and other communications from people I know and from complete strangers from all walks of life. I have found it quite a humbling experience. Actually, I suspected all along that I might get such a response.

In the lead-up to today’s debate, I have also received a lot of supportive letters and e-mails. I have also been urging other people to support this worthwhile Bill. Earlier in the week, however, I received a communication from—I shall try to use my language carefully—an ill-informed individual who asked, “Why does this matter? Aren’t you just trying to make an exception for MPs? Why should they be different?” As the hon. Member for Croydon Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) have already pointed out, this is not just about Members of Parliament. This is about trying to lift the stigma that, unfortunately, even in 2012, still attaches to mental health, and about helping people to come forward to get the support that they need.

When I was thinking about what I was going to say today, I decided to look back at the history of the legislation on this issue. The thing that saddened me is that it has not changed a great deal in 126 years. The use of language might be different but what the legislation actually does has not changed since 1886. Earlier, in July 1849, the then Member for Thirsk, John Bell, was considered, in the language of the day, to be a lunatic. The House of Commons set up a body entitled the Commission of Lunacy, which concluded that he was, in its word, a “lunatic”. He was telling his constituents and friends that he was a bird, and that he could fly faster than a bird because he oiled his wings. The commission found him to be a lunatic, but could do nothing about it. Sadly, he died in 1851.

The Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act 1886 has already been mentioned. The very good House of Commons Library found me a copy of it, so that I could see how the law differed from the present legislation. Apart from the use of language, nothing very much has changed. If someone becomes aware of a Member of Parliament being of unsound mind, they are still required to report it to the Speaker. That is a legal obligation under the 1886 Act, whose provisions require magistrates or other persons in whose care the Member might be placed, including those in charge of lunatic asylums or other areas where a lunatic might reside, to certify the committal or detention of the Member to the Speaker.

There is some great language in the 1886 Act. In those days, the Speaker had to submit a certificate

“if the place of such reception, committal, or detention is in England, to the Commissioners in Lunacy in England; if such place is in Scotland, to the Board of Commissioners in Lunacy in Scotland; and if such place is in Ireland, to the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland.”

A report had to be drawn up on the condition of the Member of Parliament in question. If necessary, after six months another report had to be drawn up. If the individual was found, in the language of the day, still to be a lunatic, the Speaker would then make the seat vacant and issue a warrant for a by-election. There was no right of appeal.

I then looked at the Mental Health Act 1959, hoping that attitudes might have become a bit more progressive and that things might have changed. The basis of process was exactly the same, however. The only things that had changed were the language and the people who needed to commission the report. In the 1959 Act, the Member was to be visited and examined

“where the member is to be visited in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, by the President of the Royal College of Physicians of London”—

and

“in Scotland, by the President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the President of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, acting jointly”.

So nothing had changed apart from the people who needed to draw up the reports. There was still no right of appeal against their decisions, and the Member could still be disqualified if they were found still to be of unsound mind after six months.

I felt sure that the situation would have radically changed by 1983, but the Mental Health Act of that year retains the basis of the 1886 legislation. The procedure still involves the need to report Members who are considered to be of unsound mind, as well as the production of a report, and a further report after six months. The only change is that, under section 141(3):

“The registered medical practitioners…shall be appointed by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and shall be practitioners appearing to the President to have special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorders.”

We therefore still have on the statute book a law that dates back to 1886. The only change since that time relates to the people who draw up the reports for the Speaker on whether they consider the Member to be suffering from a mental disorder. There is still no right of appeal, although there would be in most tribunals. It is therefore important that this Bill should be passed through Parliament, and I welcome the support for it from the Government and those on the Opposition Front Bench.

The 1983 Act has never been used in relation to a Member of Parliament, but section 141 is still on the statute book. Other countries around the world, including former eastern bloc countries, use mental health to silence opposition. Sadly, in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, that is still happening today. We have a piece of legislation on our statute book that could be used for that purpose and, if we are to set an example to the rest of the world, it is right that we should pass this Bill.

John Bell died before any legislation was introduced, and he therefore could not be disqualified. The 1886 Act has been used for this purpose only once. Charles Leach was elected to represent Colne Valley in West Yorkshire in 1910, and disqualified in 1916. Interestingly, in the 1910 election, he defeated Victor Grayson. Anyone who knows the history of that period will know that Victor Grayson disappeared, and some might argue that he was another individual who suffered from some type of mental illness.

From what I have read about this former Member for Colne Valley, he was a quite independent minded and progressive individual. He started as a member of the Independent Labour party, but his mental health deteriorated—obviously during a period in which the Liberals were in office—in 1910, and he then stood for Colne Valley. He was also a Methodist preacher and he was appointed as a chaplain to the armed forces. During the first world war, he had to visit in London hospitals those who had been injured on the western front. His mental health clearly deteriorated over time. He was not, of course, sectioned in those days, but he was a committed to what was the aptly named Northumberland house, which was a private lunatic asylum in north London, under the powers of the 1886 Act. Sadly, he died in 1919, aged 72. Some people say that if the legislation has been used only once, what is its purpose?

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Speaking as the Member now representing Colne Valley, I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I also want to praise the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), too, for giving way and for the way in which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have spoken so honestly about their own mental health issues. Today is the first day I have ever attended debates on private Members’ Bills; I have been inspired to do so on this important issue. Someone very close to me is tackling mental health issues, so it is an emotional day for me as well. Because the hon. Member for North Durham mentioned Colne Valley, I thought I would stand up to praise him and others who have talked so passionately and emotionally about this important issue.

[Mr Jones]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I would like to give a plug for my right hon. Friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who is another former Member for Colne Valley. If anyone wants to read a good book on Victor Grayson, I would recommend Lord Clark’s book—a very interesting read.

As to the need for changing the legislation if it has been used only once, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, it is necessary because it stigmatises people suffering with their mental health. There is no such provision for people with physical disabilities. It is possible for an MP to have a stroke or to be in a coma, yet there is no mechanism for removing such an MP from this House. Some Members may recall the vote of confidence in 1979. If the stories that go around are to be believed, some individuals who voted in it were brought into Palace Yard when they were allegedly not compos mentis—and died shortly afterwards. Their alleged condition was no hindrance to them voting.

Is this important for MPs? Yes, it is. Over the last few months, I have received e-mails from young people. One moving one was from a Cambridge graduate who was going through a difficult depression. She said that she had always wanted to enter politics and be a local councillor—I have to say that I questioned her mental health because she was a Conservative—and that what the hon. Member for Broxbourne and I had said had given her some hope that people could still enter public life without any stigma over their mental health. What we are doing under current legislation is writing off an entire group of people who can make perfectly valid contributions to society in whatever role they play.

Another e-mail I received was from a lawyer. She said that she had suffered from depression in the past and was still on medication, yet she practised every week in courts in Leeds. As she said, under the present legislation, she can practise law, but she cannot be a juror. That makes complete nonsense of the law. As we see from examples like this, it is important to raise the wider issue of how we de-stigmatise mental health.

This is the second occasion in only a matter of months on which we have debated mental health in this Chamber. That is important because, as others have said, we are seen to be in touch with what is going on in the wider community. Since I spoke on 14 June—this applies to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, too—I have been surprised by the number of people I meet who say, on the quiet, that they or people close to them have suffered from mental illness. I said it on 14 June and I will say it again—there are no barriers to mental health issues; mental illness can affect anyone.

Following the debate on 14 June, three individuals—I will not mention them by name—contacted me, and reinforced the point about there being no barriers. The first was a senior chief executive of a large council in the north, who I have known for many years. She is a very strong individual, probably the last person anyone would think had suffered from mental illness. Perhaps the most remarkable was a retired general with whom I worked when I was the Minister for veterans in the Ministry of Defence. Again, he is the last person anyone would think had suffered from depression, but he had and, as he said, he still does in his retirement. Most of his peers would have been quite surprised if they knew this. The third individual is a very good friend of mine who is a senior executive in a well-known plc at board level. No one passing him on the street, watching him speak on television or reflecting on his competent manner in running his large international business would think that he had suffered from severe depression. Those examples show that there are no barriers to mental health problems; they can affect everyone.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central paid tribute to Rethink Mental Illness and the Time for Change campaign, which is making a real difference. The Royal College of Psychiatrists should also be mentioned as well as Mind, which has done much in recent work to raise awareness. The clear message that needs to go out is that this is something we need to talk about. It is no good thinking that these issues affect only a small percentage of the population; it affects many.

I welcome the well-known individuals who have spoken out about their own mental health. Alastair Campbell has been instrumental in the Time for Change campaign, along with Ruby Wax and Stephen Fry. It is important that they have spoken out; they are successful people, perhaps even role models, when it comes to talking about this issue. I congratulate Channel 4 on its season a few weeks ago, when an entire week featured programmes about mental health and people who suffered from mental illness. It showed again the variety of individuals who can suffer from it.

Another clear message I want to send out today is that mental illness is no barrier to making a productive contribution to life—whether it be in public life, family life or in the local community. The more we talk about the issue, the better. It will take time to erase the stigma that is still there around mental illness, but I think we are making great strides and that this Bill is an important step forward.

In closing, I say again that we should talk about this issue more—in this place and elsewhere. I am not going to say to individuals in this Chamber, or anywhere else, who have suffered from mental illness that they should speak about it if they do not feel comfortable doing so, as it is an entirely personal decision. I am not pointing fingers and saying that people should do this. I leave affected individuals out there today with this thought—one with which I know the hon. Member for Broxbourne agrees. Since I spoke out—it was not an easy thing to do; but, in hindsight, the right thing to do—I have been overwhelmed by the support I have received not just from colleagues throughout the House but from people elsewhere. To any people sitting at home watching today’s debate who are suffering from the loneliness, agonies and dark places to which depression takes them, I say that they are likely to be surprised at the response they would get—from colleagues, families and friends—if they opened up about their problems. I understand that this is difficult to do when people are in the depths of depression, which is a very private thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, people often feel ashamed, but they should not be afraid and they should talk about it. If they opened up, I think they would be very surprised at the support they receive from a lot of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I, too, welcome the report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Will the hon. Lady also recognise the work that I and my predecessors as Minister for veterans did in the last Labour Government to advance the cause of veterans’ mental health?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is correct and I certainly recognise that work. Today is a day for recognising the work of successive Governments in many spheres of policy and human sympathy.

Turning back to today’s debate, tackling stigma and discrimination is at the heart of the Government’s mental health strategy. I join all Members here today, who have said many times that it cannot be right in the 21st century for somebody to be automatically expelled from this place because they have had a mental health illness. That sends out entirely the wrong message: that if one has mental health problems, one’s contribution is not welcome in public life. That has applied not only to the House of Commons, but to juries and directorships. In February last year, the Government announced that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. This Bill is that vehicle, and we are glad to see that issue linked to similar amendments on company directors and jurors.

This issue goes well beyond the business of government and opposition. Shifting public attitudes and behaviour requires a major and substantial social movement. The Government are doing their bit within that. February last year saw the publication of the Government’s strategy on mental health entitled, “No health without mental health”. The strategy recognised that mental health is central to our quality of life and to our economic success, individually and collectively. It is interdependent with the success that any Government might hope for in improving training, education and employment, and in tackling the persistent problems that scar our society, from homelessness through to violence, substance abuse and other forms of crime.

The title of the strategy, “No health without mental health”, captures our ambition to mainstream mental health in this country. That concept has been referred to many times today. The Government expect parity of esteem between physical and mental health services. I know, from the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, that the Opposition also want that.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is, once more, absolutely correct. In this arena, as in so many others, it is vital for the Government to work with the private sector, the voluntary sector and anybody in any capacity to achieve our aims. We are talking about broad-scale cultural change. We need the private sector, whether in a macho or non-macho environment, to stand up and say that it cares about mental health and wants people to be well supported. I want that to happen in all walks of life.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I note what the Minister says about mental health being at the heart of Government policy. I know that she is new in her post, but I ask her to have urgent discussions with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the tests by Atos that many of our constituents are facing. People who are affected by mental health issues, in particular, are having a very difficult time and there are some grave injustices that need to be put right.

[Miss Smith]

I recognise the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises, which he also mentioned earlier. I do not think that today is the right time for me to go into that matter in detail; the cross-party consensus might be affected if I did. We do need to get that process right, as we need to get right many processes of administration and welfare, in its broadest sense, across government. I am sure that my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health will have heard his plea. As a member of the Government, I certainly want us to get that process right, and I will work with colleagues to achieve that.

To build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we need to work with partners on the mental health strategy. It is not possible for the Government to say, “It shall be so.” We need to ensure that the right outcomes are delivered locally and are driven by good evidence. We must cast the net wide to do that. The challenges are enormous and extremely difficult. That can be seen, on an individual level, when we have conversations on this matter in our constituency surgeries. However, the rewards of getting this right are vast. That is part of the point of today’s debate.

It is often quoted that at least one in four of us will experience mental health problems at some point in our life. What is less often quoted is that about half of people with a lifetime mental health problem experience their first symptoms by the age of 14. That is a startling statistic among the sea of statistics in this debate. By promoting good mental health across society and by intervening early, particularly in the crucial childhood and teenage years, we can help to prevent mental illness from developing and mitigate its effects when it does. Only a sustained approach across the course of life will equip us to meet the enormous social, economic and environmental challenges, and to deliver the benefits to the people who need them, which is why we are here today.

When mental health services work well, they work well with the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector, and they help people to overcome disadvantage and to fulfil their potential. Any action on mental health, from a Government or otherwise, is not only a mental health strategy but a social justice strategy. I know that that is what all of us here today stand for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend’s attitude to the Whips Office is well documented and understood in the House. I pay tribute to him for his independence of spirit and his tenacity in pursuing not only mental health issues but a range of others, and for turning his face against the establishment whenever possible. If I may be so cheeky, I endorse his request for that particular member of the Whips Office to be on the Committee. It may be well without my powers to do so—I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or powers greater than any of us, will advise me about that shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has campaigned tirelessly on the matter and deserves recognition for doing so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I also request that when the Bill goes into Committee, we have a Health Minister dealing with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I would like to say a few words to sum up the debate. First, I welcome to the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is a good friend. When he arrived, he told me that he had been following proceedings closely, and I asked whether he had also been following them with approval. As he correctly pointed out, if it had been with disapproval, he would have been here talking for two and a half hours.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made an encouragingly brief speech, at least from my point of view. If my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has been following proceedings—I am sure the duty Whip will have noted this—he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North cannot find his way into the Chamber without his contact lenses. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for their contributions. All the speeches were excellent, and I believe that today’s debate has shown the House at its best.

Due to the changes in the rules and proceedings of the House, not only have I listened to the speeches, but I have followed the reaction to our debate on social media. What has happened in the Chamber means a lot to a great many people and I may well get in touch with hon. Members who have spoken to ask whether they would like to serve on the Committee.

I thank the two Front-Bench speakers, and in particular I echo the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about dementia. I lost my father to Alzheimer’s disease, and although Governments of both colours have made real strides in recent years, we still need to do a lot more to tackle that issue. My hon. Friend the Minister is new to her brief, but she showed a good grasp of all the issues the debate covers. To reassure the hon. Member for North Durham, it was good to see a Health Minister and a Justice Minister on the Front Bench earlier in the debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My only concern is that the Cabinet Office Minister said that the Bill has the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister, and his recent track record of getting legislation through is not very good.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into the debate on House of Lords reform, on which not necessarily all my colleagues agree with my views, but I will not return to it.

I should like to emphasise a few points from the debate. First, there is a consensus in the House that changing the law in and of itself does not change society overnight, but it does send a clear signal. Such changes have happened in my adult lifetime. When I was a child, an Asian family tried to buy a house in our road—they would have been the first Asian family to do so. Disgustingly, some of the people on our road tried to persuade the family who were considering selling the house not to sell to an Asian family. When that barrier was broken and that first Asian family moved into the road, people found that they were normal, decent people, and the problem went away overnight. Attitudes on race have changed a great deal, although not enough.

I also recall with great shame my teenage attitudes on sexuality—attitudes of which I am not proud. Attitudes in society to sexuality have also changed a great deal, and we need to change attitudes to mental health. When I was growing up, my perception was that mental health problems affected very few people. As I said, two of my close personal friends over the past 20 years have been affected by mental health conditions. I now see how many people are affected by it, because that includes their friends and family. It is not a case of people either having a mental condition or being perfectly healthy; there is a continuum.

Secondly, the hon. Member for North Durham paid tribute to a number of public figures who have been open about their conditions. He mentioned Alastair Campbell, the former Prime Minister’s press secretary, who has spoken out repeatedly—he is very brave to have done so given the high profile role he had. I should like to mention a sporting figure, Marcus Trescothick, who has shown incredible courage. I have read his autobiography, which is an extremely moving account of his experiences. We have debates on mental health in the House, but it also means a great deal when those who have a high profile in other spheres of public life take the decision to talk openly and honestly about their experiences.

Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman said, people need to tell those close to them about their condition, but the reaction they get might not be what they expect. I have been on a variety of TV and radio shows to talk about and promote the Bill. I will never forget a phone-in on Iain Dale’s show on London’s Biggest Conversation. A number of calls we took were from people suffering from profound depression and other mental health conditions. One caller could not believe that any of the people in his life would want anything more to do with him if he explained to them how he was feeling. My message, as the friend of two people who have mental health conditions, was that friends will want to know and to provide care and support. If they do not want to do so, they are not proper friends. I therefore conclude, as the hon. Gentleman did, by saying that people who are suffering should know that those who care enough will want to know and to provide help and support.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have listened to our proceedings. I very much hope the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, the latest figures taken last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicate a sharp increase to 75% of service personnel now registered to vote. That is up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the efforts made by the previous Government to encourage servicemen and women to register to vote. What he should be looking at, however, is whether those people could vote by internet. Most have access to it—at Camp Bastion and other bases around the world—so this would increase participation.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is always worth looking to see whether we could use or deploy e-voting. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it poses some serious security issues. It has been looked at in the past and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but most people who have looked at internet voting feel that there is a real issue about whether it can be done in a secure and safe way. As I say, we will continue to look at it.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I should like to start by agreeing with what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said about the role that Ann Abraham has played as parliamentary ombudsman. As Members of Parliament, many of us will have referred cases relating to the Child Support Agency and tax credits to her. She and her staff have dealt with those cases very efficiently and ensured that those people, who had had awful experiences at the hands of the system, got some redress. I should also like to welcome the appointment of Dame Julie Mellor to the post. She has considerable experience in the public and private sectors, and her enthusiasm for the role was evident during her interview with the Public Administration Committee.

The Government have not handled the issue of remuneration well. With their spin agenda and attempt to translate sound bites into policy, they do not understand one thing about the parliamentary ombudsman. There seems to be a difference between what the sound bite element in the Conservative party comes up with and putting things into practice. They are creating long-term problems for the Government in respect of the parliamentary ombudsman’s position. Her decisions, which will often criticise Departments for their dealings with our constituents, should be independent of the Government and this House.

It is in our interests as Members of Parliament to ensure that the ombudsman is as independent as possible. However, I do not think it is possible for her to be independent when she has to negotiate her own pay with the Government. I am not suggesting for one moment that Dame Julie Mellor is going to be influenced by money; clearly, as has already been said—by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I believe—she took a pay cut to do the job in question. We hear the rhetoric about being on a par with the Prime Minister’s salary, but no policy decisions have been made on that and no evidence has been provided on why the benchmark for senior positions should be the Prime Minister’s salary.

Since I have been in the House—the last Labour Government might have been as guilty as this one—independent bodies have been asked to decide on remuneration, but when Governments did not like the outcome, they changed it or argued against it. That might be justifiable when it comes to MPs’ pay, which we put out to an independent body. The first thing the Government did was to stop us taking the increase, which was to be over many years, taking our pay further and further down. There is a big difference between that and the ombudsman, who has to be seen to be independent from the Government. It is not acceptable for the Government or Executive to be able to exert any levers over the ombudsman.

There is a lot of inconsistency in what has been done. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex raised the issue of the Comptroller and Auditor General—another post that should be independent of the Government—but his salary range goes from £210,000 to £214,999. The point made by the hon. Member for Dover is right: with a link to a High Court judge, it is the independence of the person that counts. Controlling things in the way the Government have done—to be honest, I do not think they have done it intentionally; it is just that the soundbites have got the better of them—shows that they have not thought this through. If we are to have this nonsense whereby the Prime Minister’s pay is the benchmark, I ask the Minister to provide at least some justification of why and how it is formulated.

It is important to understand the history of the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. The Committee’s report was good both in questioning why things had been changed and in saying that the previous situation, although it had arisen largely as a result of tradition, was at least a justifiable way of determining the individuals’ pay.

Schedule 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 says that where a person holds the office of parliamentary ombudsman and the office of the health service ombudsman, they are entitled to draw a

“salary pertaining to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner.”

Section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967 sets out the salary provisions for the parliamentary ombudsman, and section 2(1) states:

“There shall be paid to the holder of the office of Commissioner the same salary as if he were employed in the civil service of the State in such appointment as the House”

may resolve from time to time. The Act states that, in the absence of a resolution passed by the House, the salary payable to the ombudsman

“shall be the same salary as if he were employed…as a Permanent Secretary.”

Over time, the way in which civil servants are remunerated has changed. The current annual salary of permanent secretaries ranges from £140,000 to £239,999. There is also the bonus culture, of which, as a former trade union official, I am not in favour. To give the impression that civil servants’ pay is being kept down, the basic salary is kept down but bonuses are paid as well. Civil servants may be on the lowest scale of £140,000 a year, but by the time they have received their bonuses—and various other payments—they are earning considerably more.

The salary of the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service ranges from £235,000 to £239,999. The salary of the chief executive of the national health service ranges from £210,000 to £214,999. The annual salaries of the permanent secretaries of the Departments that are responsible for most complaints to the ombudsman range from £170,000 to £174,99 and from £180,000 to £184,999.

It will be asked why that matters. I believe that it matters because of the status of the ombudsman herself. That can best be explained by means of an exchange of letters between the present ombudsman, Ann Abraham, and the Prime Minister, which revealed that the current salary was analogous to that of a High Court judge in salary group 4, which is £172,753. As the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, we are asking such people to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I think it important that they not only retain their status but cannot be influenced by Government.

In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 11 April 2011, Ann Abraham wrote:

“The existing arrangement provides an objective and effective mechanism for determining the Ombudsman’s salary, and any increases to it. It gives Parliament assurance that an Officer of the House is being appropriately remunerated and it provides clarity and certainty for the Ombudsman. It enables Government to reject out of hand any suggestion that Ministers or officials are applying undue pressure or offering inappropriate rewards to the Ombudsman.”

She went on to object to the salary bands proposed by the Government.

I think that it was right to link the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, because it meant that the ombudsman, either on appointment or each year, would not interfere with, or have some influence over, his or her pay, and it removed the danger, which may be posed by the salaries of the many civil servants who earn much more than the ombudsman does now, that the person concerned would be influenced by his or her salary level. Continuing to do that would also dispense with the nonsense that if we are not careful—I will say more about this in relation to the motion concerning the increase in the salary of the new occupant of the post—it will be necessary to negotiate every time there is a new Government, or if the salary becomes pegged below its present level when the economy becomes buoyant in the next few years and pay restraint is removed.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and valid point, but MPs, too, have to hold to account people who are earning a lot more money than them. Is there not a correlation between that point and the argument he is making?

[Mr Jones]

There is—and quite rightly. Because of previous Governments’ and this Government’s pegging of MPs’ pay, many people, even some quite low-level local government workers, are earning considerably more than us. In terms of the process that we are addressing however, it is important that the ombudsman is independent of, and cannot be influenced by, Government. We have a slightly different relationship with the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

These measures were all brought in on the basis of pay restraint. A lot has been said about trying to cut senior salaries. I have already mentioned the Auditor General’s pay, and there seems to be some inconsistency across Government about where this restraint should apply. If we are going to make exceptions, I cannot see why things were changed here, as opposed to, say, for Bernard Gray who was appointed Chief of Defence Materiel at the Ministry of Defence by this Government on a salary of £250,000 a year, plus a potential bonus of £30,000. I know that that is a very important job; it delivers equipment to our armed forces. I have no objections to Bernard, either; I know him well, and he is a very fine individual. However, if the decision was taken to break the principle of the Prime Minister’s salary being the ceiling in that case, I do not understand why the Government have intervened in that way in this other case.

The Prime Minister’s letter of 21 June reveals a lot about the attitude to pay restraint policy. I do not think he has understood the process. What we are doing here is going away from quite a well-thought-out system to one that has now brought into doubt whether not only current Ministers and Governments, but others too, could influence these areas in future.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he served as a Minister, civil servants received performance-related pay and quite substantial salaries. Indeed, larger salaries were probably offered to public officials than the current Government are offering. I am therefore not quite sure what his complaint is. Does he now recognise that the Government have conceded the principle of what he is arguing in the wording of their motion, in that in future the salary will be agreed between whoever holds my office of Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and whoever is Prime Minister

“in advance of the recruitment process”

starting, so there will be stability in the salary at the outset of the recruitment process? I am therefore not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is arguing with the Government about now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has not won a great victory here, because he has no powers of determination now in respect of the existing salary, unless he is going to be able to go back and negotiate—be the shop steward—on behalf of the ombudsman each year to increase her salary. A mechanism would be better.

What is the difference between this instance and the cases of other individuals—such as the MOD example that has been given—in terms of the pay restraint policy that the Government are introducing? Another problem is where to start in terms of the salary band. As the motion says, the individual would get an increase, but that will be forgone at the moment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should have come back to the House of Commons, with the new ombudsman having negotiated and agreed her salary at the current level, demanding that the House of Commons vote for a higher salary than she has agreed? In these straitened times I think that the British public would have found that difficult to understand. Starting from now, we have come up with a much better solution to sort this out for the future without embroiling the new ombudsman in a silly controversy that would have distracted from the seriousness of her office.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government there was a lack of ability to check pay and keep it to the correct level. As a matter of policy, it is right, in general, that officials should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the failure and misunderstanding of the policy in this particular case relates to the fact that the ombudsman’s role is akin to that of a High Court judge, and her office means that she should be treated in the same manner as a High Court judge. That is what I hope Ministers will consider, and will perhaps reflect upon and act upon.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he is living in hope if he thinks that any future Government are suddenly going to throw money at individuals once the salary has been set; he is being a bit naive to say the least. He makes an interesting point about the figure of £142,500. The policy is that nobody should earn more than that. Why? Where has that come from? We know where it came from. It came from the soundbite machine at the general election, from this Government and from a Prime Minister who does not need the salary in any case, because he has independent wealth. If someone could argue that that was the proper level for the job, that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. However, no evidence is being put forward to support that figure of £142,500. That is an absolute fortune, and most of my constituents could only dream of earning anything like that, even in 10 years, let alone in one year. None the less, I would have more respect for the Government’s approach if there were an evidence base to suggest that that figure was the norm, rather than people plucking it out of thin air and then trying to give an impression that it is the norm and capping the pay of the ombudsman—the one post that it should not have been applied to—while having different arrangements for other positions, such as the MOD example that I gave, and others.

I opposed bonuses when I was a trade union official, and the hon. Gentleman is right about our approach. The last Government used them all the time; we tried to say that we were keeping civil service pay down but we were paying bonuses instead. I was always against bonuses because they do not accrue in terms of pensionable entitlements. Let us be honest and say that the Government should try to get away from this whole idea.

The Government have put forward the same argument in respect of local government. The idea that cutting the salary of the chief executive of Durham county council by £5,000 a year or £10,000 a year will actually make a difference in delivering £140 million-worth of cuts over the next three years is completely bonkers. It is nice for the newspapers and it is a nice soundbite at elections, but it does not do the job. What we need in all these situations, as we need in any organisation, is well-thought-out remuneration structures. I am not happy about the cosy relationship between the Chair of the Committee and the Prime Minister in determining the salary of this individual. What the Committee should have proposed are the proper, thought-out, independent salary review processes that we need. As I said before, all Governments try to ignore them when they do not quite fit what they are arguing for, but that is what we need in this case.

The Government have done the ombudsman a huge disservice by intervening in such a way. I feel sorry that she is now lumbered not only with this salary but with a feeling that she somehow has to negotiate her own salary. The Committee did not pull its punches. It said:

“We believe that this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”

One of the many things about the Government that concern me is the fact that they are completely ignoring processes in devising any type of policy. That leads not only to inconsistencies but to changes that will have an effect, over time, on how the ombudsman service is seen.

My final point concerns the motion. We will agree a salary of £152,000, which the motion says is

“within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries”.

It is and, as I have already demonstrated, it is not. There are some who are on possibly £100,000 more than that and who are eligible, as the ombudsman is not, to receive annual bonuses. The hon. Member for Dover is right. On some occasions in the Ministry of Defence, I could never quite work out which targets some people got bonuses for meeting. Bonuses were used as a way of avoiding giving pay increases.

The motion says that the salary should be subject to

“any relevant increase…recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and…after the end of the current…freeze, 1% annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and that the House considers

“that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner…should be agreed by the Prime Minister”.

That is fine for the future, but why 1%? What is that figure based on? Trying to do something at the end is not very satisfactory. Although the motion will be passed tonight, the Government have a lot of questions to answer about why they have intervened in such a way.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

We rather agree with what my right hon. Friend says. There is concern that a whole new apparatus and bureaucracy should not be set up, with all the associated costs, which the previous Government’s plans would have entailed. However, we understand the concern that not proceeding with the establishment of a chief coroner would look insensitive, and would perhaps be insensitive in the circumstances. I will say a word later about the detail of our plans in respect of that office.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

What has changed from when the Minister was in opposition, when he voted for the chief coroner and his party’s Front-Benchers spoke in favour of it in Committee? The Minister spoke about cost and there is an issue about cost. Why has he not yet published what savings will be made by not having a chief coroner? If, as he recognises, certain functions have to be carried out in the Ministry of Justice, at what cost will those functions be carried out?

[Mr Maude]

It will cost very much less. The set-up costs for the office of the chief coroner, as planned under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, would have been £10.9 million and there would have been running costs of £6.6 million a year. I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what has changed. A Government have come to office and inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. We had to take urgent steps to control and eradicate the deficit. As a result of that, he will be glad to know, despite having a budget deficit roughly the same size as that of Greece, we now enjoy interest rates roughly the same as Germany’s.

[Mr Jones]

The Conservative central office spin is wearing a bit thin. Will the Minister break down the costs? The other place was disputing the one-off set-up cost. Included in the so-called £6 million a year is nearly £1 million for contingency, which is 20% of the supposed running costs. Would it not help to justify his arguments if a detailed breakdown was printed, which the Ministry of Justice has signally failed to do and he has not done today?

[Mr Maude]

I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. There will be plenty of opportunities, such as at Question Time once a month, for the hon. Gentleman to ask those questions of Ministers at the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Jones]

You don’t know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I really do need to make progress. A great many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Our first test of a body was the existential test—does its function need to be carried out at all? If, as in most cases, the body’s functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether the functions should be carried out independently. We had three tests. If a body carries out a highly technical activity, if it is required to be politically impartial or if it needs to be able to act independently to establish or measure facts, it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial or other democratic accountability. That is clearly the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility, Ofgem and many others.

Any body that does not meet any of those tests will either be brought back into a Department, where it can be held accountable to the House through a Minister, or devolved to local authorities. In both cases there will be democratic accountability. Or in some cases, a body’s functions could be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sector. We went through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review.

The first task was simply to establish how many quangos there were and what they did. It may sound absurd, but it was and remains incredibly difficult to get firm information on that. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are many different types of quango with different statuses. The official list of non-departmental public bodies contains 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies, and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental executive agencies were not within the review’s scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.

At the end of that review, I announced our proposals to the House on 14 October last year. They were that 481 of the bodies should be substantially reformed, including 192 abolished entirely and a further 118 merged. Since that announcement we have concluded consideration of a number of other bodies, and I can tell the House that the current total is that 495 bodies will be reformed, including 200 abolished and 120 others merged into 59 successor bodies. We have moved quickly to implement that programme, and I am pleased to tell the House that 45 bodies had been abolished by the end of April this year. Overall, we expect to make administrative savings—I stress that they are administrative—of £2.6 billion from public bodies over the spending review period. That money will be better spent on protecting public sector jobs and on front-line services.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Maude]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make progress. I have given way a great deal, and I do not want this speech to go on too long. I am sure that is a sentiment that the House will support.

I note that the previous Government’s intention, set out in 2009, was to abolish 120 bodies, saving the conveniently round sum of £500 million. Yet in the six months following that announcement, they did not even manage to abolish half of them—a clear demonstration that, as ever, they had a better knack for the headline than for the hard work of implementing what had been promised.

Where public bodies have been retained, they will be subject to a process of rigorous triennial review, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, that the need is there, and that the justification for them remaining independent is still valid. Far too often, bodies have been created and left well beyond the time when they are needed, partly because there has been no means to reform or disband them—any such change would have required primary legislation, time for which is, as we know, at a premium in the House.

The Government’s response to the Select Committee on Public Administration report outlined the principles of that review process, and I look forward to giving further details to the House in due course. The review process for individual bodies will be led by the responsible Minister in each case, and co-ordinated and supported by the Cabinet Office.

The House will be aware that the Bill was brought from another place, where it has received substantial scrutiny, resulting in a number of important amendments. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in this process, which has helped the Government to produce an even more coherent and well-structured Bill—it was fairly coherent and well-structured to begin with. I hope that it will command the support of this House and the confidence of the public. I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach for his skilful stewardship of the Bill in the other place.

The Bill is centred on a series of order-making powers that enable Ministers to make changes to public bodies through secondary legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament. That mechanism creates a coherent and efficient procedure for reform, while properly giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise both the principle and the detail of the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

I do not necessarily accept that that was the largest reduction. However, devolution was one of the most significant policies introduced—and proudly so—by the Labour Government, and of course previously reserved powers were then devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

A 20% reduction would have saved £500 million from next year. The Minister jibbed at that, but we viewed the process of altering, closing down and merging public bodies as one that should take place systematically over time. Those £500 million of savings would have been realised by next year.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of what is being proposed is window dressing, in the sense that even closing down bodies such as the Audit Commission will cost some £400 million in pension liabilities and winding up other assets? When we look at some of those organisations in detail, we see that the payback period might not come for, say, 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I shall confine my remarks to the proposed emasculation of the office of the chief coroner. In the three years during which I had the honour to serve as both Minister of State for the Armed Forces and then Secretary of State for Defence, a high priority for me and the entire ministerial team was to improve the service we gave to the bereaved of our fallen. We did so not to waste public money, but because it was absolutely necessary and absolutely deserved.

Our proposals were supported by Members on both sides of the House. We created the Defence Inquests Unit to examine, chase and dig out problems within the Ministry of Defence and the individual armed forces themselves, and to make certain that failings were reported to Ministers so that progress could be made. In partnership with the Royal British Legion, we created the defence advisory service, which has just completed its first year of operation and is highly respected by those who, sadly, have to use its services.

During the years I served as a Defence Minister, I read many transcripts and followed many inquests, and I have to say to the Government and the entire House that there are wide variations in both the manner and quality of coronial inquests. From time to time—too often, I am afraid—they let down our armed forces and the bereaved. I would single out for particular praise Mr Masters, the Trowbridge coroner, who was unsurpassable in his dedication and ability. He certainly exposed failings within the MOD with regard to the XV179 Hercules crash, when we lost 10 personnel. We also lost 14 in the XV230 Nimrod crash, and we had to employ the services of Mr Haddon-Cave to get to the bottom of the problems. That was not a waste of money; it was an absolute necessity that that inquiry was carried out.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend and I had dealings with some of the families of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does he agree that what they want are inquiries that are not only thorough but conducted in a timely fashion, and that they also want the role of the chief coroner to be independent of the Ministry of Justice, not part of it?

[Mr Ainsworth]

Independence is absolutely essential, and if inquests are not carried out in a timely fashion, but instead unnecessary delay is caused, that leads to huge distress. Most important, however, is the quality of the investigation, because when people have lost their loved ones they want to know that lessons are being learned and others will not unnecessarily be subject to the same error that caused their loved one to lose their life.

From my experiences in this area, this is what I would say, with the greatest of respect, to the Government: Ministers cannot advise or train or lead an independent coronial service. It is preposterous for the Government to suggest that the functions of the office of the chief coroner should be rolled into some ministerial committee. They will not con the Royal British Legion in that regard.

In the course of my responsibilities, I met many bereaved families, who went through their bereavement with great dignity and very ably dealt with the problems they faced. None were more impressive than Mr and Mrs Dicketts—Priscilla and Robert. Robert Dicketts spoke in this House a few months ago, and he recognised the improvements that had been made, but he also said:

“However, until there is a Chief Coroner, through whom good practice can be driven through the coronial system, it is likely bereaved Armed Forces families will have to go through a system which is often inconsistent and desperately in need of modernisation.”

Sooner or later, Ministers will listen to the voice of the Royal British Legion and of people such as Robert Dicketts, and they will drop their proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

No, I think it will make them much worse. That sense of accountability, which we do not have at the moment, would arguably be lost for ever.

Is the contrast I just mentioned a question of resources, particularly at a time of local authority cuts? Is it a question of competency? Is it a question of needing additional training? We do not know, because the whole process is opaque and shrouded in mystery. In the modern age, that is not good enough. Why can families in Teesside who have suffered through the death of a loved one not have some help and support and see the efficient and swift conclusion of the inquest? That is the very least that they deserve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that because we will not have a chief coroner who can improve standards, we will get more appeals? The only way to go forward at the moment is a judicial review, so will the cost of dealing with such cases not increase rather than decrease?

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree. It will not be value for money for the public purse. There will be additional costs, and one of the virtues of a chief coroner’s office would be to help provide an overview of work allocation. I think the establishment of a chief coroner could provide a more rational and therefore more efficient allocation of work, perhaps through the creation of specialist coroners who could provide specific expertise. We could save money and provide a better service for bereaved families.

It is impossible, or difficult at the very least, for Members of this House to hold coroners to account for their performance. I recently asked a parliamentary question to the Lord Chancellor about the grounds on which an individual holding the post of coroner can be removed from that office, only to be told by the Minister that the only ground for removal was personal misconduct or behaviour, but the Minister could not provide a definitive list of possible offences. The Lord Chancellor can remove a coroner only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. There is simply no transparency in the matter and no criteria by which the House or the public can hold a local coroner to account and determine whether he or she is providing an unsatisfactory service and should be removed. In this day and age—particularly when, as we have heard from the Royal British Legion, servicemen and women are falling for our country—bereaved families in Teesside and elsewhere deserve better. They deserve greater clarity and transparency.

I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the matter of poor time scales in the Teesside district and I am awaiting a response, but let me reiterate in conclusion that families in Teesside deserve to see inquests into the deaths of loved ones concluded with sympathy, professionalism and swiftness. They are not getting that at the moment and are not being provided with an adequate explanation on why and how matters will be improved. The Bill does not help; in fact, it makes things worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In December, when this matter was debated in the other place, Lord Lester made the important point that unless there is a properly independent system of investigation of deaths, the Government cannot be confident about satisfying their article 2 obligations on the investigation of deaths. That is particularly relevant in relation to deaths in prison and police custody.

In March 2004, I set out proposals for reform in which the bereaved and their families were to be placed at the heart of the system. Ministers should be reminded of the importance of putting those people at the heart of the system. Under the proposals, a chief coroner was to be appointed with complete judicial independence to lead a streamlined and modernised service, to ensure training and high standards and to carry responsibility for undertaking appeals and presiding over more complex inquests. Eventually, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted those proposals. I pay tribute to Bridget Prentice—a good friend and very able Minister—who with characteristic energy and determination turned the countless words of the public inquiries, reviews and consultations into legislation, which was passed with the support of all parties in the House, including those that now turn their backs on it.

The need for a chief coroner is even greater now, with inquests becoming ever more complex and high profile. Only recently, we have had the Tomlinson and 7/7 inquests—cases in point. Another change since 2003, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) referred to in his very powerful speech, has been the experience of bereaved families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their experience screams out for a system that is sympathetic, that understands the circumstances they face and that has their confidence.

The Government’s arguments about costs do not hold water and cannot be justified. Ministers should not simply accept the figures in the impact assessment but should challenge them. There is not one Member of this House who does not believe that the set-up and running costs of the office of the chief coroner could not be reduced. It is the business of Ministers to get those costs down, not to hide behind what was in the impact assessment. Of course, they are not counting the costs of failing to implement the reforms that were agreed in the last Parliament, such as the £500,000 or more that is spent every year on judicial reviews—not to mention the costs that will be incurred by transferring some of the functions of the office of the chief coroner to the Lord Chief Justice. Those matters will still need to be overseen by judges, and judges do not come for nothing—they cost money. Those costs still are not being counted.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is it not remarkable that although the Government have announced that they will transfer the powers of the chief coroner to the Ministry of Justice and others, they have not yet laid out what that will cost to administer?

[Paul Goggins]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It really is a shabby case. The Government are relying on old figures, which have not been challenged, and bringing forward proposals that have absolutely no work behind them whatever. My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point.

In failing to follow through on these reforms, the Government are not considering the human and health costs that will be incurred by our not learning the lessons of unfortunate and tragic deaths—information that could help to prevent deaths in future. Ministers have no proposals to monitor timeliness or to introduce an appeals system. Other hon. Members have made the point about the importance of that issue.

What the Government are doing to the office of the chief coroner is a betrayal. If they proceed with this reform they will be turning their back on six or seven years’ worth of patient consultation and policy development, which led to legislation that was agreed by all parties in the House. They will be turning their back on Tom Luce, Dame Janet Smith, the families of the victims of Harold Shipman and the bereaved families of the service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be turning their back on many vulnerable people who have had to pick their way through our outdated coronial system. But the Government still have a chance: they have the rest of this evening and Committee proceedings finally to do the right thing and drop these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

It is unlikely that Mr Blair and I would agree on the nature of reforms, but this legislation paves the way for Ministers to make necessary changes with appropriate scrutiny—without the delay that Mr Blair talked about—by giving them the mechanisms to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will have a soft spot for one or two of the bodies listed in the schedules, despite wanting to see the reform of such public bodies. We might even be drawn into trying to defend those institutions. Such an approach would be fair if schedule 7 of the original Bill remained and if the amendments made in the other place had not been accepted by Ministers. To give the Government credit, they have sought to listen to concerns and have accepted the threat that schedule 7 posed to lack of scrutiny. However, there must always be a balance between the Government having their way and the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny. The original schedule 7 did not necessarily achieve the equilibrium that we are looking for; I am pleased that it has been removed.

It is hard to believe that the quango state had grown to 901 bodies under the previous Administration. In their desire to manage controversies, a new agency would often be established to show that something was being done. Some might even argue that the agencies were useful bodies to which to retire former colleagues. The case for winding up or reorganising their numbers and purposes is overwhelming.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the worst culprit for packing quangos was the previous Conservative Government. If he cares to do his homework, he will find that one quango we invented, with which I have had a few run-ins, is the independent Appointments Commission. It took out of politicians’ hands altogether the appointment of people to quango boards.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was the previous Conservative Government who cleaned up the appointments process to ensure that there was transparency in selection. I point to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority as one of the worst examples of a Government merely reacting to public concerns without thinking through the consequences in a proper, deliberate way; it has given rise to many complaints from this House, and there is also the issue of the additional costs of that agency.

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman will cite examples, I wish he would do his homework. IPSA was supported by Members in all parts of the House; the strongest advocate for it was the current Prime Minister.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I accept the point about all-party support, but the point is the knee-jerk reaction of the Prime Minister of the day, who took the decision without providing for appropriate scrutiny. The proposal was rushed through the House without the then Opposition having an opportunity to make their case. I need to make progress, because of the time. I want to come on to some of the points made earlier.

A word of caution: merely merging individual bodies with a Government Department is not necessarily the right thing to do. There must be reform and enhancement. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for talking about the need for reform when he opened the debate. I speak from experience of the so-called bonfire of the quangos in Wales some years ago. For purely political reasons, the Welsh Assembly Government abolished the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board, among many other organisations. That was welcomed by Labour, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat politicians at the time. The claim was that there would be better democratic accountability, but the reality was very different. Simply merging the organisations without reform meant that agency staff became civil servants, and the expertise gained over many years was stifled by the bureaucracy of the civil service. Those events started almost seven years ago to this day, and those very people who were the strongest cheerleaders for the winding up of those bodies are now calling for their re-establishment.

I am certainly not opposed to the lists in the schedules, or to the need for Ministers to reform and reorganise. I strongly agree with the objectives of the legislation, but caution against winding up for winding up’s sake. I would also underline the need to make reform part of the process. There must be a wider reforming agenda to improve services.

In the final couple of minutes available to me, I want to talk about S4C. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a pretty disingenuous contribution. To talk about a 96% cut to funding certainly is not accurate. S4C will receive a 6% funding cut per annum over the next four years. That is very different from the sort of figures that she talked about. Furthermore, all the demands made by supporters of S4C have been met by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I shall go through the primary ones in turn. The first was about the importance of long-term funding. I was delighted that in the written ministerial statement published on Monday, the Government said:

“The Government are committed to ensuring that S4C will be funded at a level sufficient to ensure that it can fulfil its statutory remit and we intend to put this expectation on the statute book so that it is a legal requirement.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 2-3 WS.]

Certainly, that issue has been resolved.

Secondly, the need for independence, both operational and editorial, has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Wales. Thirdly, on the issue of the arrangements with the BBC, of course the provisions have to be in the Bill to secure the very independence that we have been talking about, and the long-term funding arrangements for which everyone has called. Those who are critical on the subject of S4C, and the strongest champions of the channel, are not equally critical when it comes to Radio Cymru, for which the BBC is also responsible, so there is significant inconsistency in the argument that is made.

Finally, it is ironic that the retail prices index link was part of the fault. Many S4C Authority members have shown arrogance over the past year; they felt that they had the right to do things irrespective of the attitude of viewers, whose numbers have been falling for the past five years or more. It is time to act, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to return to an issue that has been raised—the role of the chief coroner. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), I congratulate Bridget Prentice, who steered the legislation through when she was the Minister responsible,. She did a fantastic job and deserves credit for it. The chief coroner’s office was going to be created to improve national standards and to monitor compliance with what is, as we have heard, an archaic and shambolic system. It would also have introduced the role of medical examiners, who would be able to scrutinise medical certificates, and ensured, for the first time, a bespoke appeals system to save people the lengthy expense of going through judicial reviews.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, it is important to state how we got to this point—it was not by accident. He referred to the Luce review, which reported on death certificates and improvements in the service. He also mentioned the very important Shipman inquiry chaired by Dame Janet Smith. If we agree to what the Government propose in their amendments to take out what the Lords put into the Bill, we will go against Dame Janet Smith’s recommendation, as stated on page 492 of the report:

“The body which is to provide that leadership and support must be seen to be independent of Government. In my view, it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department.”

However, that is what is being proposed in place of the chief coroner, and that is not acceptable.

The Government have changed their position. Today I looked at the Hansard report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009, when the current Attorney-General said:

“We agree that reform of the coroners’ system is long overdue.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 46.]

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Member for Hornchurch, said:

“We all welcome the establishment of the chief coroner”

and

“the modernisation of the coroner’s powers of…investigation”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 111.]

He said that that was well overdue. In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said:

“Reform is, therefore, long overdue…I welcome the creation of the posts of chief coroner and deputy chief coroner.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 117.]

So what has changed since? The Minister, in opening the debate, said that it was all about money. If it is, then the Government need first to identify the costs of setting up and running the chief coroner’s office. They seem to miss the point regarding taking these functions in house when they say that no cost is involved in that process at all. That is clearly not the case. The figures that have been suggested include about £1 million a year as a contingency—for what, we do not know. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the Government are using this argument about cost. If they are going to make the big mistake of deleting the post of chief coroner, they will have to justify every single penny of costs, and the civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will have to justify every single thing they do in terms of costs.

Clearly, we will not get what Dame Janet wanted, and what the Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats in the previous Parliament wanted, which is an improvement in the coroner service. That is an opportunity missed. We will still be stuck with the system that we have had for many centuries, which is not only not fit for purpose but outdated and bureaucratic. It also leads to delays in the hearing of coroners’ inquests, which is unacceptable.

The Royal British Legion has stated that it does not support this reform and it argues strongly for the role of chief coroner. It is also important to record that the organisation Cardiac Risk in the Young—I chair an all-party group on the issue—is vociferous in arguing that what is needed to improve the coroners service and the inquest service for the families of young people who die of sudden cardiac arrest is the role of the chief coroner.

We need to improve the system and stop the untimely delays for those who die in action serving this country. It is all right for the Government to say that they support the covenant; that needs to be supported in practice by establishing the role of the chief coroner. I agree totally with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) that the Government will be forced to back down on this issue. I suggest that they do it sooner rather than later.

In closing, although I do not usually agree with Viscount Slim, he summed up the issue well in the Lords last week in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, when he said that the deletion of the position of chief coroner is

“mean, short-sighted and rather stupid.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 299.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

This has been a short debate on a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) rightly described as being very significant. It is significant in its potential impact on a large number of organisations, many of which perform significant functions and employ a large number of people. My fellow Hillingdon MP, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), was quite right to remind the House of the impact of the changes on human beings. Let me reassure him that I am extremely happy to meet him and the PCS group to clarify any confusion that might exist in relation to TUPE. I give that undertaking in good faith.

The debate was interesting in that it launched the Labour party’s campaign to “Back the Apple”—this from the party that introduced the cider tax! The irony has been lost on them. More seriously, it is clear that there are still profound concerns about some of the proposals on the table and that there is more need than ever for Ministers’ continued engagement regarding the Bill during its progress through Committee, should it get its Second Reading, and through the consultation processes that will have to flow in anticipation of the orders that will in turn flow from the Bill. Many arguments will be made, won and lost in that process. That is quite clear from the debate.

In the time available I will try to address some of the specific concerns that have been raised, but it is important to register that no one in the debate has, as far as I could tell, argued for the status quo. The case for reform appears to have been won, although, having listened to Opposition Front Benchers I am not entirely convinced. The truth is that when they were in power they were a lot better at moving quangos around than at abolishing them. Frankly, at the end of the Opposition spokesman’s remarks, I was no clearer about what on earth they would do if they were in power. There continues to be a complete fog about that. It is all very well talking about the case for reform, but sometimes one has to get up and do something.

The case for reform was made extremely powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Watford (Richard Harrington). The case was made particularly eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who talked about the need to shine a light of accountability and transparency, with which I entirely agreed. My observation from my constituency is that people are deeply frustrated by how complex and expensive government has become. They would like it to be simplified and for it to be easier to find out who is in charge. They would like us to bear down with much greater discipline on waste and cost inflation, not least on salary inflation. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South West Norfolk.

Given the cluttered and confused landscape that is quangoland, it would have been quite irresponsible for a new Government not to have embarked on a review of public bodies. We believe very strongly that by substantially reducing the number of bodies, returning functions to central Government where appropriate, and establishing a legislative framework for the outcomes of future reviews, the Bill takes a major step towards a simpler, more accountable approach to Government. The Bill will support the delivery of administrative savings from public bodies, as part of the Government’s commitment to delivering the effective, value-for-money systems that taxpayers rightly expect. Those principles should enjoy widespread support across the House, and I am very disappointed by the position of the Opposition in that respect.

There was consensus across the House that the Bill had been improved by the deliberations in the other place; I am happy to confirm that that is our view, too. There were questions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex, for City of Chester, and for Esher and Walton, about the triennial review, which is an important part of the new process that we are setting up. I assure them all that further detail will be forthcoming on how that review will work.

There was very little controversy, as far as I could tell, about the structure of the Bill, now that it has passed through the other place. Where there were concerns, they tended to focus explicitly on the ideas for particular bodies. I should like to focus on those that are clearly more controversial. I start with the office of chief coroner. We heard powerful speeches from the right hon. Members for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and from the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and for North Durham (Mr Jones). I pay particular tribute to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Coventry North East, and for Wythenshawe and Sale East, because they had the benefit of drawing on direct ministerial experience, some of which was clearly very powerful and difficult.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What about me?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman was not bad, either. There are clearly arguments to be made, and won or lost. The Government clearly have to listen very hard, but the point that I would make to Members who have understandable concerns about the proposal is that there is no argument about the need for reform. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, we all recognise that a much better service is required for families. There is a problem around variation in quality; he made that point well. Nor is there any argument about the need for the functions of the chief coroner; the proposal is that they be transferred, not abolished. The question is: can we have reform without the person—or without the person right now, because the Government are retaining some flexibility on that point? The concern is about whether the reforms can be delivered without incurring what, on the face of it, are significant set-up and running costs—costs that were effectively ratified by the previous Government, because they commissioned the impact assessment.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General told us when he opened the debate that the reason behind the decision on the chief coroner’s office was money. Is the Parliamentary Secretary comfortable going against one of the main recommendations made by Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman report—that the coroner’s office be independent of Government?

[Mr Hurd]

Cost is a significant factor in the circumstances that we face, and we should not underestimate its importance as a consideration for the Ministry of Justice. It is committed to reform; the question is: how can those reforms be delivered in the most cost-effective way? It is clear, as I said, that the arguments will have to be made through the processes that lie before us.