All-party Parliamentary Groups

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I declare an interest as the chairman of three APPGs—those on the police, skin and, unsurprisingly, dentistry. I occasionally attend others as well. Following the last attack, if you like, subtle though it was, I must say that I am always amused by the mythology surrounding APPGs. According to the media, in particular, they have mystical power over Ministers. Many, including those who should know better—I include some journalists—relate them to Select Committees. Journalists, when media effect is needed, always describe Select Committees as powerful and APPGs as influential. I am afraid that my response to that is “perhaps”.

The fear propounded by some in the media is that lobbyists will manipulate APPGs. In fact, one of the national papers floated that in an article today. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned Mark D’Arcy, a parliamentary BBC journalist who knows, because he cruises the halls of the House of Commons and, I think, of the House of Lords, exactly how the systems work. The Standards Committee asked him various questions—his answers are in the report—and he said:

“Someone said to me during recent events that if someone was going around touting the idea that All-Party Groups have genuine influence on Government policy, they should be done for fraud”.

He then said that he agreed, but up to a point.

As a former Minister, I was always made very aware of the background of anyone I was officially meeting, whether they were a lobbyist, from an all-party group, or an individual who wished to influence policy. Every Minister will be well briefed on anyone trying to pursue a position or point—whether they are an individual, or from a group, a firm or an APPG. Their points might or might not be accepted by the policy makers, but it is right that APPGs can be one source of information. In fact, the skin APPG recently published a report for the accepted benefit of Department of Health Ministers following a gathering together of interested people, groups, trade representatives and so on, as clearly set out in the report. The APPG assembled the evidence in its report, which is absolutely transparent about its sources. Health Ministers will make of that what they will, but whatever they do it is a useful assembly of a particular subject of interest to that Department.

It is transparency that counts, and that the APPGs are driven and controlled by MPs or peers as appropriate. The Standards Committee was clear on the usefulness of most APPGs as a means of discussion and even the enlightenment of MPs and peers, but I might also say that sometimes the enlightenment comes from MPs and Lords to those attending. As many in the House will be aware, the outside perception of House procedures and timetables is often very wrong. Those who attend sittings from outside this place often find them very educational. I remember the chairman of an important chamber of commerce, whom I will not name, asking for some legal change involving primary legislation, and his absolute failure to understand that even if I, as a Minister, agreed, which I did not, it could not be enacted after having made progress through both Houses in the next week.

In essence, the changes desired in the report are fairly minor and reflect the Committee’s desire not to over-regulate. The sceptical media and others need to realise that APPGs with transparency and light regulation are preferable to ad hoc groups operating without transparency, undercover, which would be the result if APPGs were limited in number or were over-regulated. This is a carefully considered report with relatively minimal changes that essentially extends transparency.

Business of the House

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, dozens of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that there are two further ministerial statements to follow, first from the Home Secretary and then from the Secretary of State for Defence. Thereafter, there will be a statement by the Chair of the Defence Committee and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on time and, exceptionally—I emphasise the word “exceptionally”—it may not be possible today to get everybody in, which, as the House knows, is my usual practice. There is an imperative, therefore, on Back and Front-Benchers alike to be brief.

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

In the light of one of the statements you have mentioned, Mr Speaker, and the publication in a few minutes of the Privileges Committee report, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on a positive aspect of the relationship between UK police and MPs? I am, of course, referring to the little-known—it should be publicised—police service parliamentary scheme, which has successfully brought police and MPs together. It started in 1999 and operates under the guidance of Sir Neil Thorne. An early, short debate would be timely, because the new scheme for this year has just commenced.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. Just as Members have very much appreciated participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, they have equally benefited from participating in the police service parliamentary scheme. A meeting was held last week to set out what the scheme has achieved and to look forward. I hope Members will take advantage of it. Many of us benefit from the opportunity to spend time with the police service in our constituencies, but the scheme offers the opportunity to understand more systematically the character of policing, not just in our own constituencies, but elsewhere too. In the context of all the debates we are having about policing in this country, it would be wonderful if more Members demonstrated to the police service their commitment to understand the nature and challenges of policing today.

Finances of the House of Commons

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I intend to cover resources to Select Committees as one of my five main issues. The 17% figure applies to the total, but there are variances within it. I believed it was important to approach this from the beginning not by saying, “There is the budget; let’s just slice it and take 17% off everything”, but by looking at areas where bigger savings or fewer savings might be made. The objective was to deliver the appropriate service that we as parliamentarians require to do our work. That was certainly what lay behind the work that was done. There is an issue relating to Committee resources, and I promise to come on to it. Again, I invite my hon. Friend to intervene on me later if he is not satisfied by what I say.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He would add, of course, that some positive savings may be made—in other words, the work of the Administration Committee and other Committees can support positive saving, so it is not just a case of making cuts.

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I believe my hon. Friend refers to the income generation strand. I intend to refer to that, too, so I invite him to intervene again after I have dealt with it. I suspect that the Chair of the Administration Committee intends to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and may well speak on this subject, as I know that this Committee has done a considerable amount of work on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman and I will disagree about this. Last year an amendment was tabled on the subject, and it was duly defeated. I completely understand his point, and it is critical that the people who have access to this place are properly vetted, but if venues such as Buckingham Palace can open in this way, I see no reason why we cannot do so. We should also be able to recover the costs involved. Clearly we should not charge for room hire for Member-organised events while we are working here, but otherwise, I believe that this is the right thing to do. The House, with its customary caution in these matters, is doing it on the basis of a two-year trial, which is being overseen by the Administration Committee. At the end of that time, we will be able to see how it is going.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend might be aware that, being close to London, I use the facilities here for charity events to the nth degree. Those events do not involve bankers; they involve ordinary members of the public who, because we are opening our doors, are given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the facilities here and enjoy the expertise of our banqueting service. I believe that, as MPs, we should be opening the House in this way.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend serves on the Finance and Services Committee, and I am grateful to him for his comments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have heard a few comments about the superb news from Sydney, and with my accent may I back that? I will not mention last Saturday and Twickenham, save to say that our family had a motto imposed on us by our youngest son who said that he supports the All Blacks and anyone—but anybody—playing the Australians, which I also support.

I have sat with the two Committees behind this report. We have heard a good review from the two Chairs—one of whom has just disappeared—on the report’s key aspects, so I can be fairly brief.

As the report’s introduction explains, this is the second year that the Committee has produced a report. Assuming the motion is agreed, the report will go to the House of Commons Commission, which I assume will ratify it. As has been said, the report was put together with considerable assistance from the Management Board and senior staff, particularly the finance team. They did that under the unusual difficulties our system imposes on us, and they are to be congratulated on their expertise, persuasion, and—probably even more so—tolerance.

Having been in the private sector in a small and medium-sized business, been associated with a large national retailer, and had some small influence for a number of years on the finances of a local authority, I found our procedures to be quite bizarre, although at the end of the day they seemed to work. There are similarities with the outside world in that the Committee, with considerable input in certain areas from other Committees, in particular the Administration Committee, works with the Management Board and puts together the financial report. The bizarre part—in our system, the important part—is putting the financial report before the House, where individual Members with individual foibles, of which we have seen a little today, can seek to change individual parts of it. That risks an unbalancing effect on the whole estimate package, but that is democracy.

The difficult part for the Finance and Services Committee and the Management Board has been the necessity that the administration estimate be reduced by 17% by 2014-15. This is an obvious basic requirement, as similar savings are being sought and achieved across the public sector. Interestingly, although it is not obvious to the outside world, the majority of the savings, whether positive or negative, have been produced with imaginative thinking and in many cases with an improvement in the service. They have also come with a recognition that some services were expensive, out of date and redundant, and have generally, if not entirely, not been missed.

The response of the Management Board and the staff has been remarkably positive and is distinctly worthy of our thanks, which have already been given but which I reiterate. All the changes, it seems to me, have been done without affecting the day-to-day work of Members of Parliament. Some of the modernisations set in train, particularly current and impending changes in our IT systems, will bring positive benefits to MPs who are prepared to utilise new ways, although some are a little slower than others. The new benefits post-election for MPs and their IT opportunities is, when grasped, an overdue advance that will bring us slightly in the direction of modernity.

Moving to a cloud system makes us more vulnerable to cyber attack. That raises the issue of security, which has increasingly become a deep concern. We face more complex attacks, which make security more expensive. This is an area we share with the other place and that itself gives us problems, which have been subtly touched on. In this area and others, sharing brings considerable complications.

Another major area of complication is the proposed new education centre. That has been walked over and I do not intend to follow the same steps, but I would guess that no Member would decry the importance of extending education opportunities to the United Kingdom. The new proposals have been mentioned at some length by others. I have a constituency close to London, so my schools are in the best situation to benefit and increasingly do so. The relatively new transport grant should help the spread elsewhere. Nevertheless, this is an area where co-operation with the other place appears, for the moment, to have stumbled. It is amazing and astonishing that the facilities—I touched on this point in an intervention—particularly the dining rooms, in addition to the historic tourist attraction of the Palace, have not been used for income generation. At last, the Administration Committee has taken the brilliant step to expand services, in particular by utilising our dining facilities to the benefit of the House. These rooms are a brilliant addition, especially with our excellent banqueting team. Our change of hours has enabled the opportunity for a considerable extension in this area, although there are kick-backs that were touched on earlier. The Administration Committee should be congratulated on grasping this opportunity, which will increase income greatly.

Perhaps the biggest area of concern is the repair and renewal of this amazing historic building as we move towards a full capital expenditure of repair and renewal in the 2020s. All in all, we have to recognise that although we have pondered on this matter today, it is not what the report is about. Assuming the House agrees the estimates, we will move slowly towards having tighter functions and better services. Despite our bizarre system of financial control, it does seem to work and I hope these estimates are agreed without change.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we believe that we need to connect, then the choice of jobs that some MPs take is intriguing. I will come on to that point in a moment or two, because I have some thoughts on it. Having a more diverse set of MPs would be a better way of connecting the Commons to the world than simply saying that we should all take second, third, fourth or even fifth jobs.

I have spoken to Labour MPs who were involved in business activities before being elected and who remain closely interested in the corporate world in which they worked, but who, shortly after being elected, voluntarily ceased to take remuneration because they believed that being an MP was a full-time commitment. I have also spoken to many Labour candidates for the next election—a new generation of Labour MPs, I hope—and I have not yet met one who believes that being an MP should be anything other than a full-time commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, when hon. Members say that having a second job somehow connects them to the outside world, what they generally mean—I am not talking about everyone—is a top, well-paid job. Not a single MP has recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests a second job as a manual worker, a hospital porter, a cleaner or a call centre worker.

Today’s motion deals with remunerated directorships and consultancies. Beyond those activities, the motion talks about regulating other sources of income. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has announced that we are considering a cap on other forms of outside income, such as earnings from journalism or media appearances, that would apply to all parties. An hon. Member might belong to a profession—normally we talk about lawyers, doctors or perhaps dentists—and need to retain their professional qualifications, but I remind the House that a gas fitter also needs to do so many hours a year to retain his CORGI certificate and an electrician needs to keep in touch with the regulations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Nothing we are proposing would prevent such a thing.

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

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s exception. I ought to be a gas fitter; I would be better off financially than I am in my current profession. He seems fixated on the paid part. Many Members have jobs on boards and organisations that are unpaid but which occupy the same amount of time and effort as those that are paid. Is his problem with the paid part?

[Jon Trickett]

I think the hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by my argument and might decide to join us in the Division Lobby. I hope others do, too, because, on this question of fiduciary duty, if an MP is remunerated, sometimes very substantially, it will create the perception that they might be tempted to calculate the impact of a particular proposal on that income before deciding how to vote. I do not suggest that any MP has ever done such a thing, but in the public mind, that is a widespread view. If we cannot agree this afternoon, Government Members should at least reflect on that.

MPs’ other activities, including remunerated activities, can be taken into account in any new rules we might agree. For the vast majority of MPs, our proposals should be very simple and make no real changes to how they go about their work. Without robust regulation, however, the perception will continue that politics works for a tiny closed circle of people at the top of our society, but not for the millions of hard-working people who play by the rules yet find it increasingly hard to get by, and that brings me to the kernel of my argument. Millions of people play by the rules, but feel that they are getting a really rough deal, while also believing that there is a different set of rules for others, particularly those at the top. We politicians must take account of that public mood. It is time we stepped up to the mark. Precisely because it is we who set the rules, the rules have to apply to us above all.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has set out the rules that will apply, and a few technicalities have been added by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) from the Opposition Front Bench.

I rise briefly to support the motion more as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee than of the House of Commons Commission. As motions 4 and 5 on the Order Paper indicate, subject to the motion being agreed we will have a new standards Committee, a separate privileges Committee, and at least two new members starting in the new year. This is interesting timing, as the new Commissioner and the three new lay members will be commencing in their roles. There will be an interesting learning curve for the lay members and for the Commissioner.

As hon. Members are aware, the Committee will meet in private to consider reports from the Commissioner following her investigation of complaints that are felt to be appropriate to the Committee. I hope that having lay members will bring some reassurance to those outside our peculiar bubble, and that it might even calm the odd strident reporter from the odd strident newspaper. It will be interesting for the new lay members to learn what life as an MP entails and the various and considerable pressures under which MPs work.

The rules on standards have been reviewed in the light of the Committee’s recent experiences. We have had more such experiences than we should. The report has been published and will be considered by the House in due course. In some areas the rules have been tightened, but efforts have been made to clarify the rules so that hon. Members understand them more easily. Complicated rules and an ignorance of them have been a source of minor apparent transgressions. The new lay members will need to appreciate the combination of the rules and the pressures faced by hon. Members. The Commissioner receives a steady trickle of complaints. Fortunately, most relate to matters that are not relevant, and, sadly, there are sometimes personal or political attacks. Now that a spate of cases from the expenses scandal have been through the mill, I hope that the work of the Committee on Standards will become minuscule.

Compared with the scandals of most other countries, I believe that with rare exceptions, the UK and the House do not have a real problem. Having our robust system certainly helps us to keep it that way and the rules will tighten that even more. I expect and sincerely hope that this will continue, and be supplemented by our new lay members.

House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The two Chairs have covered the main points and, with the limit on time, I thought I might touch on some aspects of amendment (b)—not to oppose it, but to provide a tiny warning.

The package coming forward is a general public sector savings package that is in line with the target. The difference this time is that the report, and the thinking behind it, are being discussed in the Chamber. It has also been put together under a new attitude, which is to seek to provide better and more efficient services at less cost to meet the target. As has been mentioned, the officials putting the package together have worked very closely with staff and unions. In fact, many of the ideas for change have been derived from staff undertaking the service. That has enabled staff redeployment within the House of Commons service, rather than redundancies. Although hon. Members may not be aware of it, many services are already contracted out. Many services will come up for renewal, and, in the present atmosphere, they may well bring savings to themselves. In the event of franchising out, staff could of course move to the new provider with TUPE protection, or move within Chamber services themselves by redeployment.

The possibility of market testing has been extensively researched. The team undertaking it have had a free hand to assemble a business development plan. Outside private sector support and advice has been utilised. Market research to provide benchmark information has been undertaken, and that has given the Commission a forward-looking financial information system that it will be able to use to gauge whether it is worth market testing. Obviously, there has to be an in-house bid and the research will give such a bid a competitive edge.

While I understand the thinking behind amendment (b), I suggest caution. First, it seeks to tie the Commission and reduce its flexibility to choose the time of testing, if indeed that appears to be the choice to go for. Secondly, it may well delay savings. Some of the services projections indicate that the private sector could contribute to much lower costs in the latter half of a contract. That means that if tendering was chosen in some cases, the sooner this is undertaken the sooner we will get savings. Thirdly, from my own experience, outside advice on costs or savings always overestimates costs and if the service is tendered and, crucially, if the private sector bid, they have a benchmark that they know they can come in under. Finally, any outside bidder will know from the business improvement plans the bid level they must beat to win if we follow the amendment. I therefore hope there is some caution before we adopt amendment (b). Much credit must be given to the Administration Committee for looking at business improvement plans, efficiency savings and better use of our facilities. The House has already had a debate on this a few weeks ago.

I am concerned about amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). He appears to have missed the opportunity, but is now asking us for a second time to present this before the House. Most of the areas in which he calls for commercialisation already happen in some way or other, although to a lesser degree, and therefore with less financial advantage to the House, but with no reduction of facilities to hon. Members. I hope he feels able to not press his amendment. The Administration Committee is suggesting careful extensions of our underused facilities to the UK public. Obviously, that would need to be done in a careful way, as indeed it is currently, so as not—if I may use the well-worn phrase—to bring the House into disrepute. I hope he realises that what he is proposing will result in further delay. It will be unsettling to staff. It will reduce the savings, because they would not be brought in earlier in the financial year, and that would mean further savings from other areas to meet the target.

The report comes as a package. That means that if there is any cherry-picking of specific items that reduce savings, they will need to be compensated by savings in other areas. I hope that when my hon. Friend stands up to speak, he thinks about that carefully before he puts his proposal. I hope that the House will approve the motion without amendment, so as to give the Commission a chance to consider points raised while retaining the flexibility to act appropriately on various aspects of the programme to the benefit of the House budgets and of Members’ services and staff.

[Andrew Miller]

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has a positive cost benefit, not a negative one, in terms of available staff to the House?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

The hon. Gentleman has just beaten me to POST. The Commission will look at what was said. The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, has already made it clear that he will look closely at that with the Committee, so I will not comment on the details of that particular amendment. I am concerned about amendment (b); amendment (c) is destructive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

This is where the disagreement lies. I think that we have reached a happy compromise and that we should go this far and no further. The Commission is suggesting that businesses will have special privileges to hire out rooms. My right hon. Friend said that if people are rich they should be able to see some special paintings in the House of Commons. That is wrong. This is our Parliament. We should not make a distinction between people with money and people without when deciding who sees which parts of Parliament.

I turn to savings. I have already talked about overseas trips: if a small percentage—20%, for example—was cut, we could save £250,000 a year. Another £50,000 a year is wasted on food waste. Have we ever considered closing one of the dining rooms, for example, because often the dining rooms are not used?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend has touched on a key point. He says that the dining rooms are not being used. If he comes in here during recess, he will see people who have bought relatively cheap tickets—compared with other buildings they could visit—and are coming through and enjoying themselves. They are not rich people. If he walks a little further, he will also see empty rooms that could be used—but are not—to the benefit not only of the public but of the House’s finances.

Standards and Privileges

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Clearly, as a member of the Committee I support the findings and I support the motion. I do not want to go through the report, but I just want to raise an issue that comes from it. The commissioner’s inquiry was in two parts. The first included a measure of co-operation from the Member in question combined with research into retained files. That evidence was sufficient for the Committee to decide to pass further inquiries to the police, which we have already had explained to us. The second half was subsequent to the police investigation. This time the Member refused to co-operate and a fuller investigation was partially blocked. It is a requirement of the House that Members co-operate with the commissioner. There is no fifth amendment; co-operation is expected. It is very often the core of the inquiry for the commissioner to have that response and co-operation.

I have not been a member of the Committee for very long, but I understand that there has been at least one case, and perhaps more prior cases, where a Member has refused to co-operate. In at least one case, the House imposed a suspension after which the Member returned to the House, leaving the Committee with an unsatisfactory report and no real resolution. This is a concern that the Committee and the House should look into, because I suspect that this will not be the last occasion when this type of reaction to the commissioner will happen.

Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I shall be antipodeanly succinct; I shall be minutes.

I merely want to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There has been discussion in the Standards and Privileges Committee, and between the Committee and him, following which some positive changes have been made. In particular, we mentioned whether the lay members may, or have to, produce a report. The reason behind my amendment (c)—this was picked up and covered by the Leader of the House—is that there is a logic and a bureaucratic advantage to having the same Members on each Committee. However, as was said by the Leader of the House—and, to my amusement, by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—there is also the opportunity, if required and if appropriate, for that to be altered. For that reason, I shall not press my amendment.

Code of Conduct

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

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

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

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

[Mr Walker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

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

[Sir Paul Beresford]

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

[Mr Walker]

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

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

Ministerial Statements

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the motion raises a bigger issue relating to you, Mr Speaker, but I shall deal with that later if I may.

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

The hon. Gentleman said that announcements were not time-sensitive, but they may be time-appropriate; in fact they may be regionally appropriate. I am thinking of local government announcements. It would be much more appropriate to make those at a certain time, and outside the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that those occasions are very rare. On very rare occasions, something is market-sensitive, for example, in which case there is an argument for Treasury Ministers to be able to exercise that judgment, but it is a rare occurrence. Labour Members are always mindful of Hugh Dalton, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, managing, before the Evening Standard came out, to leak a couple of elements of the Budget, although not deliberately—I think it was accidental. He ended up losing his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer because of that. Therefore, I do not want to create a rule for Ministers whereby, when they think that an announcement is time-appropriate, they can use whatever device they want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

I agree, and I must say that we are used to Mr Speaker telling us when we are out of line, so it seems to me to be a natural extension of the role of the Chair to act as gatekeeper in this process.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Of course, the opposite point is that the complainant might be being political.

[Mr Knight]

The complainant might indeed be being political, but if a complaint was made with no grounds, in fact I would expect Mr Speaker to block it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was suggesting that there would be a difficulty in the process, but I do not particularly think that there would. I have every confidence that the occupant of the Chair—whoever it was—would see that justice was done.

The Government made some issue of the fact that the Procedure Committee did not receive any formal evidence from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on this proposal. I am rather baffled by that comment, because the Procedure Committee’s report does not suggest that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has any role in the process, so it is not clear why the Government think that we should have received evidence from him.

The Government said that they do not accept the Committee’s recommendation that the penalty for a breach of House protocol would be a recommendation from the Standards and Privileges Committee that the Minister concerned should apologise to the House. Instead, the Government note that there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with Ministers refusing to apologise to the House when a breach occurs. However, that rather misses the point, which is that the Standards and Privileges Committee would have no need to use its powers if there was no problem to be dealt with. If a Minister had already apologised, there would be no need to go there.

It is perhaps also worth reminding those on the Treasury Bench that the Government have repeatedly expressed support for their own protocol and that the Government are saying that they agree with the majority of Members of this House that the House should be told first when there is an announcement of Government policy. It seems to me, therefore, that the serious leaks that occurred last week should also be deplored by those on the Treasury Bench. I hope that the Leader of the House, when he comes to address us, will add his voice to those that have already placed on record a number of concerns about the leaking of large parts of the autumn statement. Many Members wonder why the Chancellor has not apologised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

I think we have to live in the real world—a world with 24-hour news. We know that when Governments consult on policies, some of those who do not like those policies decide deliberately to leak information, and Government Ministers are then sometimes called into studios to defend or explain their position. If we have a protocol within the House that makes it difficult for Ministers to explain what the Government’s position is, a lot of our constituents will be worried unnecessarily because, to coin a phrase, a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That quite often happens with people maliciously trying to misrepresent Government policy.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I was tempted to rise because the previous intervention was made by an hon. Friend who was a political adviser to me when I was a local government Minister. He assisted us in deciding whether it was appropriate, with regional issues, to make announcements in the areas to which they related rather than in the House of Commons.

[Mr Syms]

We have to look at the situation realistically. When the Prime Minister goes to the EU to negotiate with other leaders, at the end of that negotiation he stands on a platform next to the Union Jack and the EU flag and announces what has been discussed, what we have agreed with and what we have disagreed with. He sets out how he has been batting for Britain. What we are now saying is that whereas Merkel, Sarkozy or any of the other leaders can put the best face on their negotiation, the British Prime Minister will not be able to do so because he will have to come back here to make a statement, which he does anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am not the only member of the Standards and Privileges Committee present, but I am probably the only one who is going to speak—and I note a nod from the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), sitting on the Opposition Benches. I am not going to speak for the Committee, however, because quite simply it has not looked at the proposal at all, or responded to it, but it should, if we proceed any further with the suggestion—or with a report, because after this discussion it might be more appropriate for the Procedure Committee to take the matter back, look at it again and decide whether to change its approach or to submit the issue to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

As a former Minister, I remember the requirements of the ministerial code hanging over me like a heavy weight if I thought I was ever going to step out of line, and also—taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who is no longer in his place—decisions on whether it was appropriate. Many such statements are a matter of judgment, and one has to recognise that there are a vast number of statements.

Many statements relate to timing, to regions or, from my experience, to local authorities, and, if a local authority is awaiting a statement, it is appropriate to make it in that area. The thought of what would happen to the House if we were gummed up with every single statement coming out of the Department for Communities and Local Government alone is beyond the imagination.

There are leaks, but one only has to consider a Minister being stuck with a journalist, particularly one from TV or radio, who has come forward with either a leak or an educated—or an uneducated—guess and a question to which the Minister needs to respond to see how someone with a political motivation might take it as a statement that should have been made in the House, even though it might in fact be made in the House later.

It is quite inappropriate not to recognise those difficulties, but, if we follow the Procedure Committee’s suggestion, we will be hitting with a heavy sledgehammer what is generally—albeit with exceptions—a very small nut. My own experience, which is from some time back, was that there was little or no leaking. I do not remember any, but perhaps my memory is slipping.

If such a complaint were sent, through the normal procedures, to the Standards and Privileges Committee, it would first go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an official of the House. He would consider whether it was appropriate to investigate, but many such complaints would verge on the political, because the decision on the appropriateness of a statement made outside the House, whether substantial or not, is subjective and made by a Minister, with a measure of political judgment, be that with a small or large “p”. So, in effect, the motion asks for an officer of the House, the commissioner, to make a decision on a political issue, which I think would be absolutely inappropriate, as I believe and suspect the commissioner, from my discussions with him on other things, would, too.

Essentially, the Committee looks into complaints that Members have brought the House into disrepute. Decisions, including the Committee’s, are non-political, and the commissioner’s report is non-political. Most complaints fall by the wayside, because many sent to the commissioner—on the way to the Standards and Privileges Committee, if they ever get there—are political, are made by the public and are, quite often, from individuals who have been defeated in an election in a constituency. It is a well known technique, but fortunately it does not progress too far, because many such complaints are political, as many would be on the issue before us.

Ministers have to make a decision on a statement, but, with such rules hanging over a Minister, many statements would not be made outside the House when they should be; they would end up in the Chamber and, as I have already said, clog up the business. [Interruption.] There was an interjection, and, if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would like to stand up and interject, I might be able to respond, because I am hard of hearing and did not catch it.

[Chris Bryant]

That argument takes us to the point where we might as well do away with parliamentary government and just have government.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I, of all people, would not follow that tendency of the previous Government. I absolutely disagree with him, and today’s examples, whether from this Government, the previous Government or the one before, have been of substantial leakages on substantial statements. The majority are not substantial, and we will clog up the business if we bring through all the minor statements, especially the regional or local ones.

We must also remember that we are, in effect, asking the Speaker, who must be non-political, to make a judgment on what will often be a political complaint. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was correct to say that it would be inappropriate for it to be referred to the Speaker.

This debate will be helpful for the Standards and Privileges Committee if the matter is brought before it. However, the debate is being held too soon, because the matter will need to go before the Committee if the Procedure Committee decides, in the light of what is said, to go ahead with this technique. The Standards and Privileges Committee will have the opportunity to look at the whole issue again—I hope that it does—to think again, and possibly to look for another procedure to move forward with in the light of the comments that are made today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important and interesting intervention. I would go further, although I accept that very few people are of the same mind. We make a mistake in thinking that we can somehow reserve to decisions of military or financial sensitivity and urgency the possibility of their being made outside this place and then discussed fully inside this place.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Does my hon. Friend not agree—from his vast experience in this place, and perhaps also looking from the outside—that although a considerable number of statements are of little or no interest to the House because they are regional, specific or small, perhaps involving one or two MPs, and so on, the decision on that, which the Minister takes, must be subjective, which makes the Minister vulnerable to attack, as we are seeing?

[Nick Boles]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This House has many opportunities to embarrass and annoy Ministers who seem to act with discourtesy towards us. I am not for a minute arguing that we should not make full use of that; I am just arguing against this motion.

I would like to move on to the example of the autumn statement—which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) raised earlier—in which, as I think we can all agree, some of the most important announcements of this Session were made. It is true, as we should admit without embarrassment, that many of the proposals in the autumn statement were discussed widely in the media—on television, in the newspapers and in the blogosphere—in the several days before the statement. I have no idea whether that was by accident or by design, but I fervently believe that this ensured that public awareness and understanding of the contents of the Government’s plans and their response to the difficult economic situation in which we find ourselves was far higher than it would have been if nothing had been revealed until the statement was made. I ask Members to ask themselves two questions. First, how many people are willing and able, in their busy working lives, either to watch the autumn statement as it is broadcast on television or to read parliamentary reports? Secondly, how many of them, given the slightly weird way in which we all speak, will understand it when they do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am conscious of the danger that we will slip into the subject of our next debate, but I believe that Members of Parliament, including those who have the privilege of serving on the Treasury Bench, should be held to the highest possible standard, and I regret to say that that has not always happened in the case of a small number of Secretaries of State and their Departments.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) cited Neville Chamberlain. Let me first remind him that what Chamberlain said was “peace for our time”, not “peace in our time”. Given the hon. Gentleman’s close association with the Secretary of State for Education, who I understand is very keen on British history, that is the kind of thing that we should expect him to get right. What he did not mention, however—[Interruption.] I hear a mobile telephone ringing. It is probably The Guardian, asking for the latest statements.

What the hon. Member for Poole did not mention was that the then Prime Minister, having left the airport tarmac clutching his piece of paper, went straight to the Chamber of the House of Commons, where he gave a detailed account of events in Munich and responded to questions over a substantial period during which he was subjected to considerable heckling from Members on his own side.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

The hon. Gentleman is giving us a delightful piece of history. However, the reality is that nowadays the Prime Minister would arrive and be flooded with television cameras, microphones and so forth, there would be educated and uneducated guesses, the Prime Minister would be trapped into having to respond—and he might indeed use the words “in our time”.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a low opinion of his party’s Prime Minister that he does not consider him to be sufficiently fleet of foot to outfox a handful of Fleet street’s finest, but we are discussing something more substantive than a Prime Minister’s arrival from the tarmac to make a major policy announcement. We are discussing the habit that the Government have fallen into, after just 18 months, of considering no announcement too big or too small to be given to the media before they can be bothered to get around to giving it to the House.

We saw an example of that only a few days ago. The Department for Energy and Climate Change contacted The Guardian’s twitter feed more than half an hour before it was known that a statement was to be made, let alone what the contents of that statement were to be. It is a matter of great regret to many Members on both sides of the House that the Secretary of State and his cohorts have such a low regard for this place that they cannot even be bothered to tell Mr Speaker or the Opposition that a statement is to be made before they tell the media.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and I believe that I touched on that a moment or two ago.

The motion would create new, enforceable rules of the House, and that is a novel step. In 1995, the House passed a resolution setting out the principles that should govern the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament. The resolution referred to broad principles of accountability, and the duty not to mislead Parliament and to be as open as possible. It made no mention whatsoever of a duty to make statements in the House first.

I shall now deal briefly with the process outlined in the motion, which my hon. Friends did not touch on. The first step in any case where a Member believes the standards had been breached—

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir George Young]

If I may, I will make some progress and then give way.

The first step in those circumstances would be to refer the matter to Mr Speaker. The relevant recommendation of the Procedure Committee says the following about what happens next:

“If he determined that the complaint was without basis or trivial, it would be open to him to dismiss it.”

The motion makes no mention of that. Where a minor breach has occurred, the motion, like the recommendation, refers to Mr Speaker taking steps. But Mr Speaker already has the power to summon Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions—a power used more extensively by this Speaker than by any of his predecessors. One should not underestimate the value of that tool. The former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), told the Procedure Committee that Ministers take urgent questions very seriously indeed.

A range of other options are already available to the House to hold Ministers to account and can be used as sanctions. Ministers can be cross-examined by departmental Committees, they can be called to account through debate in the House—more so than ever before as a result of the Backbench Business Committee—and there can be a debate, in extreme circumstances, on a motion of censure. Indeed, I recall answering a debate in which it was proposed that my salary as a Minister should be reduced—a motion that, in its wisdom, the House did not carry.

In those circumstances, we oppose the suggestion that it would be a useful addition to give Mr Speaker the power to refer a more serious or complex breach to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That proposal was made by the Procedure Committee, although I note that the Committee has not published any written or oral evidence to show the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee on the proposal, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Given that there is no proposal to change the terms of reference of that Committee, I assume that a referral would be treated as a matter of conduct. The code of conduct, which applies to all Members, contains no reference to the conduct of Ministers. Indeed, this subject was not raised in the recent consultation on the code. Out of the blue, the motion seeks unilaterally to change the principles behind the code before the House has even had an opportunity to review them.

As a former Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I think that those proposals could conflict with the fundamental role of that Committee, which is to regulate the conduct of individual hon. Members. It is not the function of the Standards and Privileges Committee to enforce the ministerial code and there is a real risk of double jeopardy if two institutions—the Prime Minister and the Standards and Privileges Committee—police the same code.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who chairs the Procedure Committee, said that the Government preferred the status quo. That is not quite the case. We proposed a number of reforms to his Committee. First, we suggested that there should be time limits on certain oral statements, so more could be made. That was rejected. Secondly, together with the then Shadow Leader of the House, I expressed an open mind on the proposition that oral statements could be made in Westminster Hall, but the Procedure Committee made no recommendation on that. Thirdly, I proposed that the earliest time for the release of written ministerial statements should be brought forward from 9.30 am to 7 am, which could be coupled with arrangements that the House already has to ensure the prompt availability of such statements on the parliamentary website. The Procedure Committee rejected that suggestion.

The Government are keen to pursue proposals that enable the House and its Members to be informed first of the most important announcements of Government policy in helpful and innovative ways. In the light of recent events, I will remind all Cabinet colleagues of the terms of the code and the strong views of the House in the debate this evening. However, the proposal before us does not take matters forward constructively. It seeks unrealistically to change the standards expected of Ministers and then seeks to subject them to additional policing that muddies the waters surrounding the role of the Standards and Privileges Committee. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the motion.