Business of the House

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I have regular meetings with the chairman and chief executive of IPSA, but on the subject of MPs’ pensions, the Government made their views perfectly clear last July when I tabled a motion, which was passed unanimously without Division in November. IPSA referred specifically to that resolution when it announced its proposals in the document that was published a few weeks ago.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the quality of decision making in the NHS, since MPs in my area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), recently discovered that a decision to make Chester rather than Warrington a hub for vascular services was taken without any criteria being set down and therefore without any scoring against set criteria? We are now left in a position in which our hospital and its future services are at risk, based on a decision that appears to have been taken arbitrarily. Do people not deserve a better quality of decision making than that?

[Sir George Young]

I challenge the hon. Lady’s assertion that hospitals and health services are at risk because of the decision about the hub to which she refers. However, I am happy to refer to the Secretary of State for Health the issue of why that particular configuration was chosen in her part of the country.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill

Helen Jones Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on getting his Bill debated and on the characteristically entertaining way in which he has discussed it. I think the only person that we did not hear mentioned was Mrs Bone, so, as we have not heard about her for a long time, I want to send her our best wishes before moving on to the substance of the Bill. I shall also try to be brief because I know that the Deputy Leader of the House wants to speak as well, although there is much to be said.

It was entertaining to hear of the cowing effect that the Whips seem to have on those on the Tory Benches. When I was a Labour Whip, it did not seem to work like that at all; the situation was quite the reverse, in fact. I am peculiarly qualified to discuss the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, in that I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo) in her previous incarnation as a Minister, a rebel on the Government Back Benches and then a poacher turned gamekeeper as a Whip. I was therefore interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said today.

The Bill would have the effect of disqualifying all Government Whips, the Opposition Chief Whip and the assistant Opposition Whips from membership of the House. Interestingly, it does not seek to disqualify the Opposition deputy Chief Whip or the third person in the Opposition Whips Office who receives a salary and who is usually, but not always, the pairing Whip. I assume that those people would be left here to run amok and do as they wished. Meanwhile, the Opposition assistant Whips, who are not paid, would be subject to disqualification.

The problem with the Bill is not simply that it is defective, but that it is wrong in its intent. It is bizarre, at a time of growing pressure on Ministers to become more accountable to Parliament, that the hon. Gentleman should seek to ensure that one group of Ministers should no longer be accountable to Parliament at all. That is what his Bill states, although of course that is not his real intention. His real aim, as he stated very clearly, is to get rid of Whips altogether. Most of his argument seems to be based on fictional characters from “Yes, Prime Minister” and on a strange belief that people who have fought to become Members of Parliament by scrambling over everyone else to get selected and elected are so wet that one word from their Whip will turn them into quivering wrecks who will do exactly as they are told. That is just wrong.

MPs may choose to break the Whip. That is a choice that many in this House have had to make on occasions, and sensible people know that, if they do that, consequences will follow. We cannot have everything in this life. I remember being threatened with the loss of my career, which was not much of a threat as I did not have a career to threaten at the time—it took me 11 years in this House to become a promising newcomer—but that is the price we pay if we break the Whip. We are all grown-ups, and we know the price.

More importantly, we are also products of a party political system. When the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituency, the people there know that he represents the Conservative party—at least for some of the time. Similarly, the people in my constituency know that I am a Labour Member of Parliament. I assume that, like me, he stood for election on his party’s manifesto. The party political system in this country is frequently denigrated, but I want to make an argument for it, because it gives people at least a general idea of what they are voting for—unless they support the Liberal Democrats, in which case they usually get the opposite of what they vote for. This is not to say that politicians do not have to react to events or that the manifesto covers every eventuality, but, in broad terms, party politics defines common approaches to problems. There is a good argument for greater scrutiny in the House, particularly on the Report stages of Bills, but if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants, he should concentrate not on the whipping system but on the timetable.

I repeat that Members of Parliament are not sheep. It was certainly not a word that we used when I was in the Whips Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), the Chief Whip under whom I served, referred to the parliamentary Labour party as “the body of the kirk”. He used to tell us to get out among the body of the kirk, not the flock.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough should not pretend that we do not have party politics in this country. The alternative to party politics is a system based on personalities. I do not mean that Members of Parliament do not have personalities—I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that they do, and the hon. Gentleman is a fine example of that. However, systems that are based on personalities, not parties, tend to lead inexorably to campaigns that are based on personal wealth. The reason for that is simple. People seldom get elected to the House as independents without personal wealth, although there have been one or two notable exceptions.

The long-term effect of the Bill would be to move us in precisely the opposite direction to the one that most of us wish to take—it would lead to the politics of personality rather than politics based on issues. We have already gone too far in that direction, and we should move away from it, not towards it.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s comments with great amusement, and I feel terribly sorry for Tory Back Benchers if they are so frightened by their Whips, but I cannot support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I really do not think it is for the Government to limit or try to ration the supply of questions, because, as he says, it is very important that hon. Members have that opportunity to hold the Government to account. However, I do think that hon. Members, like other public servants, should consider the impact of their activities on the public purse. It is particularly important to recognise that the right to table questions belongs to hon. Members, and hon. Members alone.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that if he is to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to

“increase the power of Parliament”,

he should be worrying less about the quantity of questions and more about the quality of the answers? What is he going to do to ensure that Ministers give full and timely responses to Members, and that they end the increasing practice of giving holding answers to named day questions and transferring orals at very little notice? Or is this going to go the way of other prime ministerial pledges, such as those for more free votes on Bill Committees and text updates on the progress of Bills?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady has a very short memory span if she really thinks that this Government are performing worse than the Government of whom she was a member. I recall that many times her Government were quite incapable of providing timely, or indeed adequate, responses to questions. We always try very hard within the Departments to make sure that people get their questions answered properly and on time. If Departments fall short of those ideals, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are very happy to chase up those Departments to see whether we can improve the performance. However, I have to say that I do not think the performance is lacking at the moment.

Committee on Members’ Allowances

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome the fact that these motions are being debated today, and welcome even more that the House appears to be moving towards some consensus. It is of course a matter for Back Benchers to decide, but it is important that we get this Committee set up and running as soon as possible, because the scheme clearly needs amendment.

I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place. Like me, he sits on the liaison committee with IPSA and we spend a lot of time trying to iron out problems in the scheme. It is imperative therefore that we reach a sensible position that both maintains public confidence in the scheme and does not use up too much of the time of hon. Members, who are fast becoming the highest paid data input clerks in the country.

Anyone who has read the National Audit Office report published today—I have had the time to read only some of it—will be clear that much work needs to be done on the scheme. The NAO quantifies the amount of time it is taking for Members and their staff, and actually puts a monetary value on that. It also comments on the repetitive nature of much of the information that is required. We clearly need to have a transparent expenses system. I do not think that anyone in the House would suggest anything else. However, we need to have one that facilitates the work of hon. Members and does not get in the way of our much more important work of representing our constituents. I am grateful to hon. Members involved for their work in setting up the Committee, which I hope can play a major role in ensuring that the scheme we have works properly and in the best interests of our constituents and the House. I look forward to the Committee being set up and being able to get on with its work as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Let me start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in DCMS questions, and let me answer him clearly. The reason we had to put the date back three years is that there was not enough money in the kitty—something that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury under his party knew only too well and was prepared to write down. However, we have not ditched that commitment; we have said that we will deliver it in this Parliament. Indeed, we have gone further and said that this is not just about 2 meg, because today’s superfast broadband is tomorrow’s superslow broadband. I would urge the hon. Gentleman and those on his Front Bench to get behind this Government’s commitment to a 90% roll-out of superfast broadband.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support the promotion of the rugby league World cup in 2013.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I have met the executive chairman and chief executive of the Rugby Football League on a number of occasions. Last November the Prime Minister provided a video message for the official launch of the 2013 rugby league World cup. The RFL is selecting venues with UK Sport’s support. These will be announced in November, and I will work with RFL on its promotional campaign as it develops.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that the World cup gives us an opportunity to promote a sport that is family friendly, in which there is very little trouble on or off the pitch, and which is much cheaper for families to access at the weekend than major football games? Does he also agree that the World cup gives us an opportunity to encourage visitors to some of our northern towns? This could be a win-win situation, so will he pledge to do all that he can to use the World cup to promote those ends?

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer is yes. May I thank the hon. Lady for her support both for the sport in general and, in particular, for her home team? As she correctly says, any major sports event is a fantastic opportunity to drive money into the local economy. That is why we have put more money into the major events part of UK Sport, which is standing behind the rugby league World cup, which I am sure will be a terrific success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed the case that when I was on the Back Benches I could do some blue-sky thinking but my horizons are now more constrained. I say to him that the Prime Minister is more than satisfied with the current arrangements for Prime Minister’s questions.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Is not the real reason why the Leader of the House cannot announce more time for Back-Bench business or give us the date for the end of the Session that the Government are running into trouble with their own legislation? Their Public Bodies Bill has been shredded in the Lords, they have been defeated on police commissioners, their Back Benchers are getting jittery about pensions and they have had to recommit the Health and Social Care Bill. Why do they not stop rushing into botched, ill-thought-out legislation, think things through and allow more pre-legislative scrutiny? Think how that would have improved the Health and Social Care Bill!

[Sir George Young]

I will take no criticism from Labour Members about the way we handle the parliamentary programme. We are giving far more time for legislation than the previous Government, who frequently guillotined the remaining stages of Bills. We have on several occasions allowed two days for Bills on Report, including this week, and we have extended the Session so that the House has more time to consider the legislative programme, so I entirely reject the hon. Lady’s assertions that we are rushing legislation through the House.

Standards and Privileges

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

May I begin by echoing the thanks of the Leader of the House to the Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? The nature of the matters that they had to investigate required a detailed investigation by the commissioner and careful scrutiny by the Committee, and the whole House is grateful to them for their diligence.

The matters under consideration that have led to the motion on today’s Order Paper are extremely serious ones that concern breaches of the rules over the very long term. No one should underestimate their seriousness. The commissioner found that from 2001 the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) submitted lodging agreements that gave a false impression of his relationship with his landlord and of their shared use of successive London properties. The commissioner found that he claimed higher rent for the use of two London properties than was justified either under the terms of the lodging agreement or as a reflection of the arrangement that he had for living with his partner in those properties.

The commissioner also found that the right hon. Gentleman wrongly claimed for building work on the second property that should have been covered by the rent. In addition, he dealt with the separate matter of wrong claims for phone bills, which, as Members who have been here for some time will know, were not claimable under the additional costs allowance.

I think it fair to remind the House that the commissioner reached his conclusions based on the standards expected at the time, and not under a retrospective reinterpretation of the rules. [Interruption.] A Member on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is not right, so perhaps I can clarify the matter for him. Claims for phone bills in Somerset and for a mobile phone were judged by the commissioner not to be claimable under the additional costs allowance, because the ACA related to a London property. Those were the rules at the time.

In considering the report, the Committee made it clear that it agreed with the commissioner that from 2005 onwards the right hon. Gentleman’s main home was, as a matter of fact, in London, not in Somerset. The rules at the time made it clear that any hon. Member who was in doubt about which property they should declare as their main home should have sought advice. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do so.

The Committee endorses many of the commissioner’s conclusions. It makes clear the seriousness of the breaches in agreeing with the commissioner’s conclusion that while the arrangement for the first property may have represented a good deal for the landlord, it did not represent a good or even a reasonable deal for the House. The Committee also makes it clear that the breaches in relation to the second property were even more serious, because the right hon. Gentleman had made a significant financial contribution to the purchase and upgrading of the property.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he was concerned to preserve his privacy. However, it has always been the rule of the House that when personal interests and the public interest conflict, matters should be resolved in favour of the public interest. Sadly, we therefore have to conclude that, because the breaches were serious and took place over a long period, the penalty that the Committee proposes of a suspension from the House is the right one. The Opposition therefore support the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. At the meeting we discussed the various options that would be available. At the moment, I want to concentrate on getting the funding that was promised, and committed to, by the Northwest Regional Development Agency for the rugby league world cup—[Interruption.] No, it has the funding to cover the world cup, if it chooses to do so, and I hope that it will because of the benefit to that region.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

When I raised this matter in October, the Minister, as I recall, promised me that he would treat both codes equally when allocating funding for the two world cups. Will he pledge to stick to that promise, and will he ensure that towns such as Warrington benefit from the world cup by hosting some of the matches?

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely. I made the commitment to the hon. Lady, and I have stuck by it. I followed it up with a letter to the rugby football league. It has been down to see me, and there is no question of our treating the two codes differently. The issue here arises from a tranche of funding that was promised by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, but which it has now threatened to withdraw. Clearly I want to get that money out of it, and we will do everything possible to bring this home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

We are committed to publishing Bills in draft whenever possible, but the aspiration to publish more of next Session’s potential Bills in draft must be balanced against the need to devote sufficient resources to getting this Session’s Bills right. We hope to increase the proportion of Bills published in draft during the current Parliament, and by the end of this Session we expect to have published more Bills in draft than the average number under the last Administration.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

As the Government are so keen on pre-legislative scrutiny, can the dear Deputy Leader explain why they did not use the procedure in the case of the Health and Social Care Bill? Would that not have had numerous advantages? It would have prevented the Government from introducing legislation that had not been thought through, it would have allowed the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they were being listened to, and, more important, it might have saved the NHS. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise for that abject failure, and ensure that the House is given proper time to debate the amendments to the Bill when the Government present them?

[Mr Heath]

I rather like the idea of being a dear Leader, or a dear Deputy Leader. I think it lends a certain cachet to the office.

The serious response to the hon. Lady’s question is that, with a new Administration, it is inevitable that some Bills will not receive pre-legislative scrutiny because they must be put into action. In the case of the Bill that she mentioned, however, a period of reflection is now being entered into, and I think that it will be extremely valuable. It will ensure that we hear the advice of everyone who is concerned with getting the Bill right.

Private Members’ Bills

Helen Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

We welcome the motion that the Leader of the House has tabled. This is a greatly extended Session of Parliament, certainly longer than any that I can remember, and it is therefore right that more time should be allowed for Back-Bench business. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, there are other things to consider about how the House deals with private Members’ Bills and how Members can get a fair hearing for them, but they should and will be dealt with at another time.

Members who table private Members’ Bills deserve the chance for those Bills to receive proper debate and, if they get the necessary support, for them to pass into law. As with all matters before the House, however, we need to ensure that there is a little common sense and, if I may gently say so, a little consideration. Some Members have tabled an amendment to extend the amount of time available for private Members’ Bills, but at the moment a small group of Members are introducing a great many such Bills, which is unhelpful to the House as a whole and to other Members who wish to have their own Bills debated.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the same group of Members are the ones who seem to speak the most on a Friday? Perhaps if they spoke slightly less, we might have more time to make progress on Fridays.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend tempts me into a matter that is one for Mr Speaker and his deputies. I am sure that if hon. Members were filibustering, Mr Speaker would not allow them to do so.

When I last counted, I think the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) had about 20 Bills on the go, and the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) had 13 each. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of those figures, because my eyes started to glaze over as I went through the list. Frankly, I started to lose the will to live after a while.

The problem comes down to the fact that Members who are successful in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and wish to introduce legislation should have a fair chance to have their Bills debated and voted on. It is up to them to gather enough support from all parties to get their Bills through, but I say to the hon. Members who have tabled the amendment that that cannot happen if others table so many Bills that they block up the system entirely. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

But that cannot happen in the second part of this extended Session, because there is not going to be a further ballot to allow private Members to take part in the process. Does the hon. Lady agree with the coalition Government that there should not be a further ballot?

[Helen Jones]

We will wait to see what the Government bring forward, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that his Bills do not have a chance of getting through, one wonders why he tabled them in the first place.

I hope that we can agree to the motion, so that Members who wish to pursue their private Members’ Bills have a proper opportunity to do so and get a fair hearing from the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Peter Bone to move the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

Can the hon. Gentleman quote back to me anything I said that suggests I want the Executive to have control of private Members’ Bills?

[Mr Bone]

I cannot—I do not have that sort of memory—but I got the impression that the hon. Lady was saying, “No more extra days,” whereas the previous Government did not support Standing Orders and reduced the number of private Members’ days in a Session, and I shall talk about that briefly later on. That is a key issue. I was hoping she would stand up and say, “Actually, the previous Labour Government got it wrong on that particular point.”

While I am dealing with the hon. Lady’s remarks, I wanted to talk about the process and the number of Members who have tabled private Members’ Bill. She gave the impression that only three Members had tabled Bills.

[Mr Bone]

Eric Forth was perhaps one of the best parliamentarians ever, and I rather think he enjoyed Fridays, so he probably would have liked more.

I saw a wonderful quote from the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, about how wonderful it was to be selected in the ballot. The main obstacle to getting his Bill on the Order Paper was Eric Forth. Eric will probably be looking down now and saying, “Yeah. Actually, we would like more power for Parliament”—he certainly believed in that—“and therefore more power for Fridays.”

[Helen Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to search his memory, because what I remember most about Eric Forth, for whom I had a great deal of admiration, is that he spent most of his time on Fridays killing off private Members’ Bills rather than allowing them to get through—[Interruption.] As the Deputy Leader of the House says, he would certainly have enjoyed that.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady has misunderstood my comments. Eric Forth killed off hopeless Labour private Members’ Bills, which he did with great relish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has now taken on that role, and does it extremely well indeed—no doubt we will see some more Bills killed.

As legislators, MPs have the opportunity only on a Friday—on a private Members’ Bill day—to put forward their Bills. I should like to counter the view of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She said that only three Members put down private Members’ Bills on the days that we are discussing. In fact, on 9 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) will promote the Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing) Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will promote his Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill. On 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will promote the Police Terms and Conditions of Service (Redundancy) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but I, too, was a little disappointed in her statement that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with their Bill should just withdraw it.

[Helen Jones]

I did not say that.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Lady did say words to that effect, as the record will show. I have paraphrased, but that is essentially the meaning of what she said: that Members who thought they had no serious chance of making progress with Bills should withdraw them. I have been trying for seven years to get food labelling legislation on to the statute book. The fact that I have now had to introduce a Bill four times, and that at each stage people have said I have very little chance of succeeding, has never stopped me trying.

Members’ Salaries

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I do not want to detain the House for long—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is clearly the best reaction I am going to get this evening.

I detect throughout the House a real desire not to be having this debate at all. Having to debate our own pay is not good for the House at any time, and particularly not after the debate that we have just had. We are where we are, however. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Last week, I went into my local hospital and members of staff there told me that they were genuinely worried about how they were going to pay their mortgages. A pay freeze for the armed forces has already been mentioned. I do not think that anyone here believes that MPs could take a pay rise in those circumstances.

Members have rightly said that the whole question of our pay needs to be taken away from this House and given to an independent body. If we are honest, we have to admit that Governments have always interfered in the recommendations of pay review bodies—that has certainly been the case in all the years that I have been in the House. We need finally to get away from that. The solution is not as simple as linking our pay to a grade in the civil service, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) suggested. We tried that, but the grade was abolished. That is how we got into many of the problems that we faced later.

We need to get this matter out of the House very quickly, and to establish an independent system for setting our pay. Having listened to the debate, I believe that that is overwhelmingly the view of Members. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not simply tell us that that will happen “shortly”; I hope that he will tell us when it will be done, because no one wants to be in this position ever again.

Bill of Rights

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. This has been a very interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), the other hon. Members in charge of the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on bringing it about, because it raises fundamental issues about the role of Members of Parliament and about Parliament itself. As hon. Members rightly said, the rights and privileges of Parliament exist not to provide protection for MPs merely, but to protect the rights of their constituents. In that sense, articles 9 and 13 of the Bill of Rights are complementary. We all know, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley quoted clearly, article 9, which states that

“the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Article 13 makes it clear that one purpose of holding frequent Parliaments is to be able to redress grievances. In other words, Parliament is here not just to make laws, but to address the grievances of Members’ constituents—the two are part of the same thing.

[Mr Cash]

I do not want to take the hon. Lady into a great dialogue on this; I will simply ask her a question. Is she as confident of what she has just quoted in the light of the judgment in the Jackson case, in which several members of the Supreme Court questioned the extent to which they had ultimate authority and said that parliamentary sovereignty was being qualified? They used those words, and many more besides.

[Helen Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to proceed a little, perhaps I can touch on the issues that he raises, but I want to keep my remarks to the subject of the debate.

One reason why becoming a Member of this House confers huge privileges on us all is that it enables us to act on behalf of our constituents. To be able to do that effectively, as several hon. Members have said, Members of Parliament must have access to information. A number of cases have been raised today, and many of us have had experience of hospitals, schools sometimes and councils trying to deny hon. Members the information that they request. In my experience, that is normally fairly easy to deal with, although the cases involving the courts are much more complex. I hope to be able to come to those in a moment.

Hon. Members know that they must use the protection granted by parliamentary privilege sparingly and not for their own advantage, but use it they must if it is necessary to right a wrong or to get justice for a constituent. Since I came into the House, I have seen a number of examples of hon. Members rightly taking up issues on behalf of their constituents and using parliamentary privilege to do so, because that is the only way to get something done.

If I may speak anecdotally, I have had experience of that myself. Not long after I came into Parliament, I felt it necessary to initiate an Adjournment debate about a charity that I felt was not operating properly. I came under huge pressure from the people running that organisation, but I felt that it was necessary to do that and to use parliamentary privilege to do it, because I believed that the people who were supposed to be being looked after by that organisation, many of whom suffered severe learning difficulties and did not have friends or family to speak up on their behalf, were being done out of their rights. Many other hon. Members will have come across cases such as that. At some point or other, we have all known of constituents who have been told that they cannot or should not approach their Member of Parliament. I say gently to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley that I have known councils and public bodies tell people that, and he must have known of it, too. I have also known Liberal Democrat councillors tell my constituents that they should not come to see me.

A case can probably be made for educating people, but we certainly need a clearer definition. Indeed, the rights of Parliament need to be made clear to many who work for public bodies. In these circumstances, I normally find that a fairly stroppy letter from me—I can write very stroppy letters when I need to—usually puts the matter right. However, some of the cases that we have heard of today are much more serious.

We have to face up to the difficulties of interpreting article 9 that arise simply because of its age. Parliament has developed and changed since 1688. It would be strange if it had not. We now live in a multi-media age, which covers aspects of communication that were not known when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

Many Members would be surprised to learn the limits of parliamentary privilege. For that reason, a review of parliamentary privilege was undertaken by a Joint Committee in 1999. The Committee drew attention to the fact that although Members are not exposed to any civil or criminal liabilities in respect of what they say and do in the course of proceedings in Parliament, there is no comprehensive definition of what “proceedings in Parliament” covers. Equally, there is no proper definition of what constitutes a place “out of Parliament”. That needs to be tackled.

It is generally accepted that proceedings in Parliament are covered by the formal proceedings of the House and its Committees and any documentation directly associated with those proceedings, but there are grey areas around that, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) noted about the documents that he had received. The Committee said that article 9 needs clarification. It clearly does, in light of Members’ experience and given what we have heard today.

[Mr Bacon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that in so far as article 9 needs to be clarified, it should be undertaken in such a way as to expand and strengthen the role of Members of Parliament rather than in any way inhibit or constrict them?

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I am a great defender of this House and of Members of all parties having the right to carry out their functions properly. Any review should strengthen the work of Members of Parliament, not undermine it.

The Committee believed that the general principle of article 9, which prohibits the examination in any court of parliamentary proceedings, should be confirmed. It also believed that three exceptions should be made to that general principle. That is something that the House will have to consider in due course.

First, the Committee believed that nothing in article 9 should prevent proceedings in Parliament being examined in court in so far as the examination related to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament or subordinate legislation. That would enshrine in statute the decision of the court in the case of Pepper v. Hart; that case made many Ministers much more careful about what they said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, because their words could be used to help the courts consider what purpose Parliament intended for an Act.

Secondly, the Committee suggested that nothing in article 9 should prevent parliamentary proceedings being used in court for the purpose of judicial review, or in other court proceedings where a Government decision was a material factor. That is not to question the decision itself; again, it is about interpreting the decision.

Thirdly, the Committee believed that courts should be able to examine parliamentary proceedings when there is no suggestion that anything forming a part of those proceedings is untrue or misleading, and—the “and” is very important—there is no question of legal liability.

I suspect that these recommendations, especially the last, will provoke hours of debate when we come to the privilege Bill, but other matters will probably need to be considered as well. The first is the status of Members’ correspondence, particularly that between Members and Ministers about constituency cases or proceedings before Parliament. At the moment, that is not covered by privilege. As we do more and more of our work through correspondence—not everything is done on the Floor of the House, as it was in 1688—the House will need to consider carefully how to deal with it.

The second matter is correspondence with Members of Parliament, a subject raised by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. It is clearly difficult to get the drafting right in such cases. Taking the two extremes, one wants to protect genuine whistleblowing and disclosure without protecting those who write to accuse their neighbours of all sorts of crimes but who have no evidence.

The third matter that we shall have to deal with is defining proceedings in Parliament that are placed “out of Parliament”, and the replacement of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. The Joint Committee recommended a new procedure, allowing the House to waive article 9 in appropriate circumstances. Again, that allows Members to defend themselves in defamation proceedings, and we have seen cases like that in past years.

There are serious matters to be considered. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has already had a case referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, in which a law firm was held to be in contempt of the House for telling him not to repeat something in the House. I confess that I do not understand how a firm of lawyers could ever draft a letter suggesting that; it is first-year law stuff. It seemed to take the firm an awfully long time to discover its error, but in the end it apologised unreservedly to the House.

The hon. Gentleman and others raised various important matters. One is that in order to redress grievances Members of Parliament need access to information. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the family courts are opening up, and that information can be given to Members of Parliament with the agreement of the parties concerned, but it is often not recognised. Another problem, when minors are involved in proceedings, is the question of who is able to give consent on their behalf. There is also the question of bullying constituents, and Parliament needs to consider that very carefully. As I said earlier, such matters are often dealt with swiftly; but if they go beyond that, Parliament needs to consider carefully people’s right to consult their MP.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if Parliament were to show some willingness to act in one or two cases, it might result in a shift of culture?

[Helen Jones]

First, Parliament needs to define what it wants to do. The question of privilege is complex. Although I might disagree with the hon. Gentleman on numerous issues, I would defend absolutely the right of any of his constituents to consult him whenever they wished to do so, as I would for any other Member of this House.

Another matter of concern was raised today—the role of the courts and of court orders when the preamble to the order or the order itself prevents people from speaking to their Member of Parliament. That is a serious issue, which the House needs to consider in some detail. Like the hon. Member for South Norfolk, I have great concern about whether such an order can stand in law. None the less, I understand that in some cases, particularly family cases, the pressure is on people to agree to such a preamble.

The hon. Member for South Norfolk asked how information coming to MPs should be protected. Many of us remember the case of Clive Ponting, who was tried for giving out information about the sinking of the Belgrano. His defence was that he had given the information to a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Bacon]

I remember the case very well because I wrote a book about it. Unfortunately, I was not able to persuade a publisher to publish it, but that is another matter. When my papers are published, it will come out. Ponting’s defence was that he communicated the information to a person to whom it was, in the interests of the state, his duty to communicate it. That was the point; not that it was a Member of Parliament, although it was, of course, the marvellous Tam Dalyell to whom he communicated it.

[Helen Jones]

I had not quite finished my sentence, but the hon. Gentleman is right; Ponting said that it was in the public interest to communicate the information. Whether or not that defence was sound, the jury simply refused to convict him.

[Mr Cash]

This is, of course, related to the proposed parliamentary privilege Bill to which the hon. Lady has referred. The Duncan Sandys case turned on the question of proceedings in Parliament. It was clear that there was a total and deliberate breach of the Official Secrets Act and that that, in itself, was in the public interest because Whitehall, or the Defence Department at the time, was correctly alleged to have been misleading the House of Commons. There are cases, therefore, in which a breach of the criminal law and the Official Secrets Act can be justified on the grounds of parliamentary “privilege”. I mention that as a good example.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but the public interest defence in all these cases is the one that is usually used.

I cannot comment on some of the individual cases that were raised today because I have no personal knowledge of them. None the less, they are serious matters that deserve to be addressed. We have all encountered people who do not want to answer MPs, or who just want to send a brush-off answer. In minor cases, I find that a nice letter from me saying that if they do not answer me, I will just table questions in Parliament and they will have to answer anyway sorts it out. However, we have heard about much more serious cases where there is a refusal to recognise the representative role of a Member of this House acting on behalf of a constituent. I will be interested to hear what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say about that.

Article 9 exists to facilitate article 13; the two are inextricably linked. There is no doubt that we need to clarify the scope of privilege and the rights of Members of this House. Concerns have already been expressed about the way in which some legislation might be eroding those privileges. Although the Government disagreed with this, the Clerk of the House raised concerns about the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and how it could bring proceedings in Parliament into the ambit of the courts. Similar concerns were raised about the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Moreover, there were issues about putting lay members on the Committee on Standards and Privileges and whether they would be able to vote on matters relating to privilege.

As Parliament has expanded its role, a load of issues have emerged that need to be clarified. We look forward to the publication of the draft parliamentary privilege Bill. I hope that the House will be given sufficient time to consider the matter seriously. We have to get it right not just for ourselves but for future Members of this House. It is not a party political issue but about getting the workings of the House right and about the privileges that need to be accorded to hon. Members to allow them to do their job.

I hope, too, that when the Bill finally comes before the House, we get sufficient time to examine it and, if necessary, to amend it. If we do not give proper consideration to this matter and ensure that the drafting is right and that Parliament works properly on behalf of the people we represent, we will be failing not ourselves but our constituents, and that is the important point that has been raised in this debate. I look forward to a proper examination of that draft Bill and to hearing the Deputy Leader of the House’s response.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bone. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate. This is the second time in recent weeks that I have participated in a Westminster Hall debate that was initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for her comments, most of which I entirely agreed with. As she said, this is not a party political issue; it is a matter of Parliament standing up for the privileges of our constituents, who are so important to our process.

The debate has focused largely on the right of constituents and others to approach their own MP to share information with them lawfully, without fear of reprisals, and the right of hon. Members, having received that information, to raise any matter in the House, without fear of legal action. It is those two issues that I wish to address this afternoon. References have been made to specific cases during the course of the debate. Like the hon. Member for Warrington North, I do not propose to comment on them today, as it would not be proper to do so in a general debate of this kind. In particular, I am mindful of the risk of contravening the House’s resolution relating to matters sub judice, and I know that hon. Members will understand why I will exercise extreme caution in everything that I have to say about the relationship between this House and the courts.

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights applies only to proceedings in Parliament, and its protection is absolute. The meaning of “proceedings” in this context is open to interpretation, but the House has never sought to assert that it should apply to dealings between Members and their constituents or other members of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley asserts that it should and I am simply stating the fact that it never has. However, the courts have regarded the communication of information to a Member of Parliament by a constituent as enjoying qualified privilege at law. Similarly, a Member who passes on a constituent’s concerns in good faith to the proper authority, such as a Minister, will not be protected by parliamentary privilege, but is likely to be protected by qualified privilege. Qualified privilege provides protection in certain situations where a person, acting in good faith and without any improper motive, makes a statement about another person, which is in fact untrue and defamatory. According to the case of Adam v. Ward in 1917, qualified privilege arises in situations where

“the person who makes a communication has an interest, or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.”

That point was clearly made during the debate. There are other cases, such as Rivlin v. Bilainkin to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred, where the courts held that it was not lawful for a person to pass on information if they were not seeking to bring to the attention of a Member of Parliament something which was his duty to pass on to another authority, but was simply making a point. In that case, a woman was making a point about her former husband, and it was held that that was not proper use of the facility and did not benefit from the qualified privilege that would otherwise apply.

The issue of passing on correspondence to a Minister is important and it was referred to by the hon. Member for Warrington North. As I have said, at the moment that does not have absolute privilege—parliamentary privilege—but it has qualified privilege. However, there is the very important case of Beach. In that case, an MP passed on a constituent’s letter that complained about a local firm of solicitors to two third parties, the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor, and the firm of solicitors took action for defamation against the MP. The court held in that case:

“1. MPs have an interest in receiving correspondence from constituents bringing matters of concern to their attention;

2. MPs have a consequential interest or duty in “passing the complaint on to the proper quarter”;

3. The Law Society and the Lord Chancellor both had an interest in receiving complaints about the conduct of solicitors;

4. Consequently, a qualified privilege was made out in this case which acted as a bar to an action for defamation”.

That is a very clear illustration of where qualified privilege assists an MP in the exercise of their proper duties and in the sort of action that we would expect any hon. Member of this House to take on behalf of their constituents.

[Helen Jones]

The Deputy Leader of the House is quite right about the case that he has just quoted. However, does he think that it is now time to consider whether an MP who is carrying out their proper duties should be subjected to a case in court and have to defend it with qualified privilege, or should we consider enshrining privilege in statute?

[Mr Heath]

I am certainly open to the suggestion that we should consider that issue as part of the privilege Bill that we intend to introduce. I will discuss that Bill in a little while.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I understand the concern about what is normally described as judicial activism, and about the judiciary perhaps wishing to extend its role beyond what has been the traditional separation between its role and that of the House. We have to be extremely wary about that. Nevertheless, I maintain that it is not and never has been the role of Members of Parliament to decide whether officers of the court are behaving properly in the exercise of their duties. Our role is to create the statutory environment in which they work, and that is a very different matter.

[Helen Jones]

It is a difficult area, but does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that while we would not wish to see Members of Parliament interfering in the judicial process—we have both probably had experience of telling constituents that we cannot do that—a constituent who feels that they have not received justice or due process ought to be free to raise that with a Member of Parliament? There are two different issues.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady puts it very well. There is a distinction, and we are right to make it.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the growth of the super-injunction, and what he described as the hyper-injunction. I was concerned when the issue arose during the Trafigura case. I am also concerned that we have allowed a whole new jurisprudence to develop without any real consideration of where it will end, or the consequences for our judicial process.

Happily, the Master of the Rolls, who has a proper role in the matter, has recognised the public concern. He established a committee in April last year to examine the use of injunctions that bind the press, including super-injunctions. He brought together a committee of the judiciary, the legal profession and the press. I anticipate that it will report soon, and we in the House should have particular concern about what it says.

Such injunctions have an impact, potentially, on what we do in the House, and certainly on the interests of our constituents. Personally, I look forward to seeing whether the Master of the Rolls wishes to bring into effect any significant changes to how the courts interpret the whole role of super-injunctions, and what he has to say about the position that has been established whereby my hon. Friend, as a Member of Parliament, cannot know that his constituent is even involved in a case, let alone get involved in it, because his constituent is injuncted by a super-injunction to prevent him passing on that information. My hon. Friend’s concern is perfectly legitimate and I am glad he has had the opportunity to express it today.