Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

As it is coming towards Christmas, we let the hon. Gentleman go back slightly to clause 2. [Hon. Members: “And forward!”]. And forward, yes. But we have been moving rapidly, and he was seeking advice as he went.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I will aim not to go backwards or forwards.

We support these common sense and proportionate clauses. As the 2006 Act beds in, they will improve the investigation and charging system by making it as efficient as possible.

Consumer Rights Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. After passing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for five-year Parliaments, it should have been easier for the Government to programme their business motions through this House. At the time of the last general election, the Prime Minister talked freely about reducing the cost of politics, but since then he has absolutely stuffed the other place with new peers and peeresses. He is obviously trying to ensure that the Conservatives maintain their in-built advantage in the other place.

It is clear that the whipping system in the other place is not working very well, which is laughable. Either Members who have just been ennobled are not turning up or other Members are rebellious, because they are clearly not voting along Government lines on every issue. The amendment on ticket-touting, for example, was tabled by a Conservative peer.

A five-year Parliament ought to ensure that programmes are completed, but motions such as this mean that Bills are stuck in the other place and we must wait for them to come back. That applies to some important Bills, such as the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, which would create an armed forces ombudsman and must be keenly awaited by members of our armed forces. It has been argued that there has not been enough time during the current legislative Session, but we should bear in mind the number of Opposition days and Thursdays devoted to business tabled by the Backbench Business Committee. I mean no disrespect to any of those debates, but space could have been made for debates on important Bills.

Moreover, during the current Parliament an unprecedented number of Committee stages have been dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee Rooms upstairs. That has used up days that could have been devoted to more lengthy consideration of Bills.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making one of his interesting speeches, but surely he is not suggesting that Committee stages of constitutional measures that have been dealt with on the Floor of the House should have been dealt with upstairs.

[Mr Jones]

No, I am not. I cannot think of an example at the moment, but a number of Committee stages that would previously have been dealt with upstairs have been dealt with on the Floor of the House. That leads us to ask whether the Government are simply trying to fill up time on the Floor of the House—and I think that that is exactly what they have been doing.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important Bill, and it will clearly be given a great deal more scrutiny and attention in the other place than it will be given here. Given the current logjam in the other place, we shall have a very thin February and March as we wait for Bills to return to us. There is also the broader issue of the reputation of the House of Commons. I do not think that headlines about, for instance, zombie Parliaments or MPs coming to the House on only two days a week do our reputation any good. We cannot expect the public to understand the minutiae of parliamentary timetabling, especially given the incompetent way in which the Government are handling it.

[Mr Jones]

That is an interesting point. I do remember seeing press reports about the letter sent to Conservative Back Benchers. If I thought that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were well organised enough, I would say that there was obviously a plot, but I do not think that there was. I think that they have found themselves with time on their hands, and Conservative Back Benchers have been told not to come here on Mondays or Thursdays.

[Mr Bone]

May I state categorically that I have never received such a letter from the Chief Whip?

[Mr Bone]

He would prefer me to stay away much more often.

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me, given the hon. Gentleman’s record. I should not have thought that he was one of those whom the Chief Whip would hold close to his bosom in terms of communication. I imagine that if there was room for only one more person in a lifeboat, the Chief Whip would not get into it if the hon. Gentleman was there.

The point is that we have ended up with a slack programme, and the progress of Bills, including this Bill, depends on how sedately or otherwise the other place deals with them. Certain important Bills, such as this and the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, could be delayed until the wash-up, and could then fall. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, provisions in this Bill that are actually welcome could end up being dealt with in the usual meat-grinder sessions at the end when it is decided what can and cannot be agreed. I do not think that that would be satisfactory from the point of view of those who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill is passed, or when it comes to ensuring that it is scrutinised in a proper and just fashion. I note that there are other carry-over motions on the Order Paper, and I suspect there will be others, because it is within the Government’s remit to introduce them. As I said, under paragraph (13) of the Standing Order that has been invoked, paragraph (14) comes into effect, which states:

“A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to extend for a specified period proceedings on a Bill which would otherwise lapse under paragraph (13), and any such motion

(a) may contain provisions amending or supplementing a programme order in respect of the Bill;

(b) may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption”.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that this is not about the Government having a procedural or a timetabling Committee of the House for Bills. A competent Government should be able to put forward a legislative programme for a Session that ensures not only that they get their Bills through, but that it is done in a timely fashion and the Bills get proper scrutiny in this place. Clearly, now that they have discovered paragraph (13), it is going to be used far more to extend consideration of Bills.

The time period goes up to 30 March and it will be interesting to see what timetable there will be and whether or not, and when, we will get this Bill back from the other place. On the transparency issue around ticket touting, for example, Lord Moynihan was clear on the radio this morning that he would listen to what this House said, but there is a good chance that the Bill will be voted on again in the other place and come back to us.

The issue is whether the Conservative Whips Office in the House of Lords can get all these new peers whom the Prime Minister has added out of their sleepy slumber and ensure that they attend and vote in support of the Government. Their record so far is not very good. There is even a question as to whether they can be relied on to vote the right way, because there are Cross Benchers and Conservative peers who support the cause of greater transparency for the consumer which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has championed for many years. If the Bill comes back, we will get into a ping-pong session, and given that we are now getting a logjam of Bills, what real in-depth discussion will we have of any amendments that are brought back?

That brings us back to my central point about the role of this House as opposed to that of the other place. I could be unfair on the Government and think that all along, with the coalition in place, their plan and the Prime Minister’s plan was to rush everything through this House as quickly as possible, so that it gets to the other place where, because he has appointed so many new Conservative peers, he now has an in-built majority to steamroller through whatever he wants.

We have seen some examples of that. The coalition love-days of the rose garden at No. 10 in 2010 have now clearly gone sour. The coalition was described then as a shotgun marriage, and it has clearly not lasted the course. I know of occasions when internal tensions in the coalition have led to legislation being dropped—the latest example being the issues around surveillance on the internet, where there appears to be a clear divide between the position of the Liberal Democrats and that of the Conservative part of the coalition. It is important that we get legislation through in time, and we cannot second-guess the internal politics of the coalition. Let us remember the rights of this House. There has been a lot of talk about broken politics, and the—

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did make some very good and eloquent points, given the recent scandal over the adulteration of food, the Food Standards Agency should possibly look at Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice?

[Mr Bone]

I want to keep very closely to the subject of the motion, and I think that that is straying rather wide.

I feel exceptionally strongly about this issue and the fact that Parliament—[Interruption.] The Whips are already having a go at me from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) asked why I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have already explained that to the House. I am really annoyed by the attitude of the Whips in this place. That is what brings this House into disrepute. They do not care about Parliament; all they care about is getting Executive business through. They are shameful. I wish my private Member’s Bill had gone through, as that would have abolished them.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by reiterating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who said that we had voted for a judge-led inquiry. We are setting an onerous task for the Commission. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) who said that it would be looked at very closely by members of the public, who now have very little faith in our banking system, whether because of national scandals or because of their dealings with their own local banks.

The terms of reference are set out clearly in paragraph (1)(a), which mentions the

“professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector”.

I should be interested to know how “culture” is defined in the context of banking. Does it refer only to banks, or to building societies as well? We should bear it in mind that the banking industry consists of not only high-street chains but, for instance, mutual societies. Will they be included in the Commission’s investigation?

LIBOR was the catalyst for the establishment of the Commission. Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy”.

You pulled up my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on the issue of corporate governance, Mr Speaker, and I accept your ruling. However, many of the matters that the Commission will consider will not relate purely to banking. As my hon. Friend said, they will relate to lending and takeover bids for companies. Will the Commission look into the culture of, for example, the Kraft takeover, which my hon. Friend mentioned? If it restricts its consideration to the banking sector, will not the inquiry be of limited use, not just in view of the vehicles involved in events such as the Kraft takeover but—I hasten to add—in view of some of the things that have been going on in local government? I have raised the issue of the refinancing of Newcastle airport, for example, which was a huge scandal in the north-east two years ago. That was driven by the idea that we could get a better deal for the local council tax payer by refinancing. In fact, it got them a worse deal. Will the Commission look at such situations?

Turning to transparency and governance, Government Members had strong opinions about private finance initiative deals when they were in opposition, and they still hold to those views now. Will such financing arrangements fall within the remit of paragraph (1)(a) and (b), as they are clearly part of a new culture that has emerged, and they are a new mechanism for funding Government policy? Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“implications for regulation and for Government policy.”

Would today’s announcements on the investment in the railways fall within the remit? That is being financed in part through Network Rail, which is a completely separate organisation and is off the Government balance sheet. The Commission’s remit could lead to such areas being investigated. There are some wider implications here, therefore, and it will be interesting to see if the Commission resists going down certain paths. If we do not have a full inquiry that looks at all these areas, the public may well think we are just concentrating on a small part of the banking and finance industry, when there are many other concerns that directly affect them, too.

I have great respect for the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who will chair this Commission, but the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) mentioned the absence of any women on the nomination list from this House. Are we saying that there are no able hon. Ladies from either side of the House who could sit on this Committee? We have in the past tried to ensure that all Committees in this House included women Members. This is an omission, therefore. It may be possible that all the members from the House of Lords will be men, too. We would therefore have a Committee made up entirely of males, which would be very wrong. It would be right to include a certain—female—member of the Treasury Committee on the Commission. Obviously that hon. Lady did not fit the loyalty criteria set by the usual channels, however. Her inclusion could have been useful, especially in the light of her previous life in the banking industry.

We are going to agree this motion tonight when we do not know who the Lords members of the Commission will be. I agree with the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw: this is a slippery slope as we are agreeing to have a Joint Committee to scrutinise and make recommendations with some members who have never been elected—and some of whom are, perhaps, unelectable.

Another interesting question is what the powers of this Commission will be. Paragraph (7)(a) states that it will have the power to

“send for persons, papers and records”.

What will happen if an individual says, “No”? Will the Commission have the full powers of Parliament to enforce its will in this regard?

It is also stated that witnesses will be under oath, and also that the Commission will be able to appoint special advisers. That is very important in respect of the expertise it will bring to the Commission. There is a question to be asked about a possible declaration of interests by those individuals, however. Many of the people who have expertise in this field will have had direct involvement in the culture that this Commission will be examining. So what will be the restrictions on the appointment of those advisers in respect of either their past lives or any future involvement they may have? That needs to be spelt out from the beginning. We need to make sure that they have not got their fingers in any of the pies that this Commission is investigating.

I do not wish to cast aspersions on any members of the Commission from this House, but we do not know who its members will be from the other House. How are we to define declarations of interest? Are these interests that those individuals hold now or in previous lives? If they are commercial interests, that will raise questions about the impartiality of those individuals, and anything that does that will damage the Commission from the outset.

Paragraph (7)(d) has already been mentioned. It states:

“to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses”.

I am not sure what that means. The normal procedure that Select Committees follow is that the members ask the questions, and questions and briefing notes are clearly written in advance by advisers. This arrangement, however, is very different. This is about having special advisers being able to cross-examine witnesses. So what is the status of those individuals? As the hon. Member for Wellingborough has said, that is a huge change from the way in which Select Committees have operated in this House. When I served on the Select Committee on Defence we had some very able advisers, but the idea that they would cross-examine witnesses is a strange one. We need clarification on that matter.

What about specialist advisers and conflicts of interest? If they are going to be counsel, we need to ask whether they have ever acted for banks or financial institutions. Would that debar them from being appointed as an adviser to the Commission? It is important that we have those things laid out clearly right at the beginning. I do not think it is right to leave them up to the Committee or the Chair to determine. [Interruption.] Government Members may well think that this is frivolous, but to many of our constituents it will be very important, in terms not only of how their money is looked after, but of trying to get credibility back into a sector that is vital to this country’s economy. This is very important in terms of making sure we get it right and of the reputation of the Members of this House who are going to be serving on the Commission.

The other thing I wish to discuss is how the Commission is going to be financed. Paragraph (13) says that

“the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.”

We all know that, if someone wants to control the activities of a committee or any organisation, they can starve it of money. Are we saying that this Commission has a blank cheque? Unless it has, the Government will be able to starve it of money and limit the scope of its activities.

Paragraph (7)(e) states that the Commission can

“adjourn from place to place”.

If a lot of foreign travel is involved, as may well be the case, that will create an expense. Who makes the determination on that in terms of the work the Commission does? Will the Treasury at some point try to limit it by saying, “I am sorry, but you have spent too much and so you cannot undertake that foreign travel or employ that expert witness to interrogate and produce the report”?

There are a lot of—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but she has only just come into the Chamber. I know that she did not have a very good week last week, but I wish her all the best for the future.

The financing of the Commission will be very important, so we need some assurance that we will not have interference by Government in the Commission’s work by stealth—that is, by starving it of the resources it needs.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making serious points about parliamentary scrutiny, and it is great that so many Government Members are present to support him. Does he welcome this new initiative? If there is unlimited funding, if there can be counsel and if the Commission can cross-examine in the same way as congressional committees, is that not a good thing?

[Mr Jones]

It is—[Hon. Members: “Ah!] Hon. Members have not heard what I am going to say yet. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we have seen this problem with Select Committees, whose travel was limited in the previous Parliament, hampering their work. As the Commission will be subject to the Government’s decision on whether they can fund it or not, that is a very important point. If the situation will be that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we should have the same arrangements for Select Committees. That would ensure that Select Committees could not only employ the proper advisers—and perhaps more of them—and see expert witnesses but undertake the detailed travel that is sometimes required.

My other concern is paragraph (12)(b), which concerns the setting up of sub-committees. There is no detail about how sub-committees will be set up or about their composition. Paragraph (12)(b) states that a sub-committee will have a quorum of one, but how big will the committees be?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a sub-committee of one person making decisions or taking evidence. It should include at least one person from each House: a Member from this House and one from the other House. Likewise, on the question of political balance, it could include a Government Member and an Opposition Member. If we are going to have sub-committees, surely it would be right to increase the quorum to at least two, one from each House, and, potentially, to try to get political balance.

There are many provisions in the motion that prompt many questions. The hon. Member for Wellingborough made a very good point, in that it sets a lot of precedents and, I hope, sets a way forward that Select Committees can follow to draw down more resources and increase their powers.

I also want to raise the issue of the Commission’s reports. The motion states that it will

“report from time to time.”

Who will decide? If the Commission as a whole decides to produce interim reports or short reports throughout its life, some of them will be very market sensitive. Will not the Commission have to be very cautious in what it releases? I am sure that many finance houses, banks and other parts of the financial sector will be looking very closely at what the Commission recommends, and it could affect the share prices of those organisations. There is no guidance in the motion about how those reports should be produced, according to what time scale and for what reasons.

The other question that was mentioned earlier is whether we are happy now that we have basically set up a new type of Select Committee. Personally, I am not. I think that this inquiry would have been far better done by the Treasury Committee. Obviously, those on the Front Bench from my own party argued strongly for a judicial-led inquiry, which was the right approach to get confidence in the banking system. In the absence of such an inquiry, the Treasury Committee would perhaps have been a better vehicle. I worry about the precedent that this sets and whether it will allow the Government of the day to dictate to Select Committees or hybrid Committees. That goes to the heart of the independence of those Committees and their accountability to Parliament. The Commission will have a huge job to do and I wish it well in its deliberations, but we should undertake a serious examination of the new system and the precedent that that sets for our Select Committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

(1) That a Committee of this House be established, to be called the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, to consider and report on—

(a) professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR ratesetting process;

(b) lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy;

and to make recommendations for legislative and other action.

(2) That Mr Andrew Tyrie be Chair of the Commission.

(3) That Mark Garnier, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Pat McFadden and John Thurso be members of the Commission.

(4) That the Commission have leave to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider the said matters.

(5) That the Commission may hold meetings under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order at any time after the Lords has agreed to appoint a committee.

(6) That the Commission shall, except as provided for in this order, follow the procedure of a select committee of this House.

(7) That the Commission shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;

(b) to examine witnesses on oath;

(c) to appoint specialist advisers;

(d) to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

(e) to adjourn from place to place;

(f) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and

(g) to report from time to time.

(8) That the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission within the terms of this order and a subcommittee shall have—

(a) the powers in paragraph (7)(a), (b), (e) and (f); and

(b) the power to invite specialist advisers appointed by the Commission (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

and the quorum of a sub-committee shall, subject to paragraph (12)(b), be one member of this House.

(9) That the Chair may report to the House an order, resolution or Special Report as an order, resolution or Special Report of the Commission which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Commission if he is satisfied that he has consulted all members of the Commission about the terms of the order, resolution or Special Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Commission.

(10) That the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House.

(11) That, whenever this House shall stand adjourned other than to the next day, any report, Special Report, order or resolution agreed to by, or evidence taken or received by, the Commission, including any under paragraph (9) of this order, may be published or printed under the authority of this House, shall be deemed to have been reported and shall be reported when this House next sits.

(12) That, when the Commission operates under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order, the following provisions shall apply—

(a) the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House and two members of the House of Lords;

(b) the quorum of any sub-committee shall be one member from either House;

and

(c) the power of the Chair to report under paragraph (9) may also be exercised with the Chair’s agreement by a member of the Commission who is a member of the House of Lords.

(13) That the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.

(14) That the Commission shall report on legislative action no later than 18 December 2012 and on other matters as soon as possible thereafter.

(15) That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.—(Sir George Young.)

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

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.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The facts do not bear that out, and I shall return to that point in a moment. If people wish to spend their money on health care, that is entirely up to them—I am not opposed to that. What I am saying is that I and others should not be subsidising that choice. We should be putting the money, as the Labour Government did, into ensuring that the general population have access to good-quality NHS care and do not have to worry about the cost.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful socialist speech, which is nice to hear in this Chamber. Is he not wrong about the new clause, however, because we would not be subsiding from the taxpayer? Anyone who takes out new private medical insurance because of the subsidy would be saving money for the NHS and so more money could be spent on the people who wish to use the NHS? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who has been very consistent in his views over the years and, I think, represents the real views of the Opposition.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on proposing—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

The proposal applies to retired people, so I think that it will affect people who have private medical insurance through their companies or who can afford to have it while they are employed, but who drop it when they retire, at the very time when they are most expensive to the national health service. The more people we can encourage to take it up, the better.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am very interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman say what evidence there is? When this tax relief was withdrawn, 4,000 people did not continue with their health insurance, so there is no evidence at all that people drop out. Likewise, there is no great evidence that by introducing this measure, the previous Conservative Government increased the numbers. What it did was give a tax break to people who already had private health insurance.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he said first that 4,000 dropped out and then that nobody dropped out. He had already proved that 4,000 people dropped out.

I believe that the proposal will improve the uptake of private medical insurance enormously, which will mean that there will be less of a burden on the national health service and that more money will be put into private hospitals, allowing them to develop. This country needs more health care of a higher quality. That does not need to be centrally controlled, but can be done by a mixture of NHS and private providers.

To get the idea that the priority of this Government has not been the NHS, Opposition Members must have been asleep. A thorough new Bill has come forward, which has been scrutinised by Parliament. There have been slight shrivels on the way, and it has now gone into Committee. This proposal would be a very minor adjustment to the NHS programmes of this Government. It deserves the support of the House and it will be interesting to see what happens when we divide.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

No, but it has been suggested that the courts should have no role in the passing of laws, and I simply do not agree with that, although I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

There is a danger that amendment 41, and indeed new clause 1, will enable lawyers to interpret the meaning of “sovereignty”, and that the clearly defined roles and sovereignty of the House of Commons will be interpreted by judges, which would be wrong. Clause 18 has been tabled purely for political reasons, to placate people such as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but I doubt that it will placate them in any way, and I believe that it poses a grave danger

[Mr Bone]

I have had no information from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Europe that this was in any way brought in to placate me.

[Mr Jones]

Knowing the hon. Gentleman’s record, I would have thought the Prime Minister would have given up on him a long time ago. If he is waiting for the call for the red box and the car, I think he will be waiting a very long time.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I was going to do so, Mr Speaker, but I was making the point that the effect of the business motion is to limit debate. When the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they made it quite clear how terrible programme motions were.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

He’s still talking about programme motions!

[Mr Jones]

Programme motions are very similar to the motion that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, which he quite clearly has not, he would be following the debate rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.

I should like to compare this situation with the two previous occasions when the House debated changes to the system of tuition fees—before the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 introduced the £1,000 fee for students, and before the Higher Education Act 2004 introduced variable top-up fees. In 1998, the Government introduced a number of programme motions. A report said that nobody objected to them, but six hours was allowed to debate amendments. No one spoke against or resisted those programme motions.

It might help if I set out in terms on the Floor of the House the consideration of the 2004 Act. Far more than five hours was allowed for debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, in 2004, there was more time on Third Reading and Report and otherwise to debate amendments, and the Government also ensured that there was a full debate on the implications of variable top-up fees—we will discuss increasing the cap on top-up fees tomorrow.

On both those occasions, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats spoke against limiting the time—the generous amount of time—that was allowed for debate. It is important to remember that there is some inconsistency in what the coalition Government are proposing, because when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they opposed programme motions on the ground that they limited time, but they are tonight going to go through the Division Lobby to allow only five hours to debate the increase in the cap on tuition fees.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Beamish and Peter Bone

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

During the nine years that I have been in the House, I have listened to Conservative Members objecting to programme motions and guillotines as though they were the wicked invention of a terrible Labour Government. The business of the House motion lists the motions on today’s Order Paper:

“Backbench Business Committee, Election of Backbench Business Committee, Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders),Westminster Hall (Amendment of Standing Orders), Topical Debates (Amendments of Standing Orders), Pay for Chairs of Select Committees, Backbench Business Committee (Review), September Sittings, Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills), Deferred Divisions (Timing), Select Committees (Membership), Select Committees (Machinery of Government Change) and Sittings of the House”.

I shall say more about the motion on September sittings later.

The changes that we are to debate will make a fundamental difference to the way in which the House operates not only in terms of the role of Back Benchers, but in terms of the representation of the minor parties in the House, and we should be given sufficient time in which to discuss these extensive motions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) that it was wrong to tag such important House business on to a major statement about the Saville inquiry—on which, rightly, many Members wished to comment, in an emotive debate that showed the House at its best—and to try to rush it through.

Many of us have recently been on the receiving end of ill-thought-out and ill-informed reform. I am sure that if we had had more time to debate the proposals of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in detail, we would not have signed up to some of the craziness as a result of which all Members in all parts of the House are suffering.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments—I think that I sometimes advanced them from that side of the House myself—but is he suggesting that he would like the House to sit through the night to make the necessary decisions in the early hours of the morning?

[Mr Jones]

No. As one who can remember all-night sittings, I have to say that they were conducive neither to the health of individual Members nor to the scrutiny of legislation. Let us be honest, however: the coalition has hit the ground running with reviews, commissions and study groups. The programme for the period between now and the summer recess is not exactly packed with legislation that would take up time. Unless all the various reviews, study groups and commissions are to report instantaneously, we should find more time in which to discuss the important changes that we are discussing, which will have an effect on the way in which the House operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is not surprising, because the Parliamentary Secretary is a Liberal Democrat and they say one thing in one place and another in another. We are increasingly seeing—we certainly saw it at Justice questions—the push me-pull me coalition, where some Members think that they can say anything in one sphere and say something else in another.

The Leader of the House, who has been in the House a lot longer than I have, clearly was against programme motions and spoke vigorously about them. I looked up his speech to the last Conservative party conference, which took place on 5 October 2009. It was revealing. He needs to explain to the House why tonight he is a great convert to guillotine motions. He said that

“one of Labour’s worst reforms has been to introduce a guillotine motion before a bill gets a second reading, automatically cutting short the time available, before we even know how complex or contentious the issues are or by how much the government will amend them. Harriet is always there, with her knitting needles.”

No doubt he will be getting the knitting out later. I can visualise the Parliamentary Secretary knitting. I find it hard to visualise the Leader of the House doing so.

I am sorry to say that there is more. The Leader of the House went on to say in his speech:

“As a result, we send huge amounts of poor quality legislation through to the Lords. We don’t have time to do what we tell you to do—read the small print.”

I agree with the Leader of the House in that we need to read the small print of the measures we will be deciding on tonight.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way and is making a powerful speech. Will he remind the House of how many times he has voted against programme motions?

[Mr Jones]

Actually, I agree with programme motions, because any idiot in opposition who argues that Government legislation can somehow be got through without programme motions should be taken out to the nearest lunatic asylum. What we are talking about here, however, is House business, which is a different issue.

I find the situation facing us a little bit galling. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, if we divide on the programme motion he may well join me in the No Lobby, and if so it will not be the first time he has voted against his party because he is an independent soul; and I am sure he will cause havoc to his party on many more occasions in the coming months and years. The important point here is that insufficient time is available to us tonight to examine in detail the complex measures that have been proposed.

It appears that we are being asked to agree to measures that raise questions as to whether we will be able to debate the issues involved again. For instance, motion 10 on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, is on September sittings and it states:

“That this House reaffirms the importance of its function of holding the Government to account: and accordingly asks the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”

Some of us were Members when the House last had September sittings, and they were a complete disaster in that there was never any business to debate. Frankly, it was just a public relations stunt, which might have made some people feel good—[Interruption.] There is no need to worry, as I am not going to debate September sittings; I shall return to the subject under discussion shortly.

There is a question to be asked, however. If we agree to this motion tonight, will the Government then allow another debate on what is being proposed, because the motion seems to give them carte blanche to impose September sittings? If we agree to the motion tonight, we will need to have a debate on September sittings in Government time. If that is not allowed, we will be denying something that is stated in the motion, in that we will not be reaffirming the importance of the

“function of holding the Government to account”.

Instead, we will in effect tonight be giving the Government a blank cheque to do exactly what they want in September, and that cannot be right.