Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The whole country takes this matter very seriously. This country rightly has a high reputation for animal welfare, and that must be preserved. Investigations into the matter are taking place, as my hon. Friend says, and those are important. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering the evidence for a possible prosecution. On labelling, we support the EU study that is looking at consumer opinions on methods of slaughter labelling. That study has been delayed, apparently, but it is now expected in the next couple of months. We will be able to review the options at that point and I am sure that the House will want to debate them.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am delighted to see that action 20 of the Government’s anti-corruption plan states:

“House of Commons to approve the proposed amendments to the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members”,

with a deadline of March 2015. The Committee on Standards is very happy to support the Leader of the House in implementing that Government policy. When will the debate take place?

[Mr Hague]

I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. I absolutely hope that the debate will take place. He and I have discussed it a number of times. There are a number of outstanding Committee reports to address in the remaining weeks of this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about a European Scrutiny Committee report, there are important reports from the Procedure Committee and there is this important report from the Standards Committee. I will do my best to accommodate these things in the coming weeks, with the right hon. Gentleman’s support.

Respect Policy

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the First Report from the Committee on Standards, Session 2014-15, Respect Policy, HC 321, which endorses proposals for the operation and review of a policy to deal with complaints of alleged bullying or harassment by Members or their staff towards House of Commons staff.

The motion appears in my name and those of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and members of the House of Commons Commission.

I want to make one thing clear at the outset: the fact that the Committee on Standards and the Commission are inviting the House to agree to a policy to deal with allegations of bullying and harassment is not a sign that there is a widespread problem. It shows the reverse: that the Commission wants to be a good employer and that Members of Parliament themselves want to make sure that any incidents of bullying and harassment are dealt with effectively.

Recent events have shown the dangers of not taking action to deal with potential problems. We are no longer in a situation where a quiet word with the Whips might be used to persuade an MP to change his or her behaviour. We need to be able to demonstrate that we do not have a culture of covering things up or of avoiding difficult issues. We also need to make sure that the system is fair and recognises that complaints need to be handled appropriately.

Although we may have very different political philosophies, those who stand for election do so because they believe in social justice, however they define it. It would be perverse for this House to be one of the few places without an effective and visible policy.

This debate and this policy are necessary because MPs are not employees of the House, but we depend on the services provided by those who are employed by the House of Commons Commission. If staff of the House are bullied by their colleagues, management can discipline those colleagues. If we as MPs bully our own staff, they have rights under employment law, as well as the support structures many parties have now put in place.

MPs, however, cannot be disciplined by the House of Commons Commission if they bully or harass House staff. We are in the position of hotel guests or other service users. If this were a hotel, services might be withheld from a particularly obstreperous MP, but that would be going against everything that the House service exists to do. It has never, ever been contemplated.

If it is to be a good employer, the House needs to have a policy in place that tackles the fact that MPs cannot and should not be subject to sanctions imposed by House management, but provides a clear framework for dealing with incidents when things go wrong. The motion gives us the opportunity to do that, and I believe we should agree it not only because we think it is right and that the House should be an exemplary employer, but for reasons of self-interest. Without such a policy, the House of Commons Commission is vulnerable to legal challenge if things go wrong.

The report by the Committee on Standards, which I Chair, briefly sets out the background to this debate. There has been, and there still is, a respect policy, which comes in two parts. The first deals with the informal resolution of disputes between Members and staff, and it remains in force. The second, which dealt with formal action if differences could not be resolved, has been suspended, because in practice it was found to be flawed, not least because it was seen as unfair to the Members being investigated. Investigation was done by a member of House staff and Members had no right of appeal, but staff did. It was quite clearly, in the Committee’s view, flawed in that way and I think most people agreed.

The note on our website on what Members can expect from the House service makes it clear that dignity, courtesy and respect on both sides are central to the relationship between Members and staff. That is generally the case. I have checked before delivering this speech, and there is not a single live complaint about a Member at present.

That is not to say that bullying is inconceivable: I think we all have to accept that it happens in almost every workplace. We operate in a high-pressure environment, and I am absolutely sure that, sometimes, things are said that are almost instantly regretted. Diffidence and patience with the status quo are not natural qualities for an MP, so a framework is necessary in case things go wrong.

The proposed policy strengthens the informal part of the process and revises the formal part of the process, so that investigation is independent and the complainant has no more rights than the person complained about.

The informal part of the process is most important. It requires Members to be told if they have upset a member of staff. I am told that, in most cases, Members have immediately apologised and taken steps to make amends as soon as they know that they have upset someone. It requires managers to look at the wider picture and consider whether difficulties arise because of a lack of capability or resources. If difficulties cannot be resolved, and both parties agree to it, there will be mediation.

These measures should mean that very few cases are taken forward to the formal stage of the process—that is, possible investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—but it is right that we should have effective measures to deal with such exceptional cases. If a complaint is made, the Parliamentary Commissioner will review the material. She will decide whether the behaviour alleged is so serious that it meets the high bar of conduct that would have the potential to

“cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

Members will know that that quotation is from Members’ code of conduct.

As the respect policy itself makes clear, the commissioner may be concerned by a complaint about a brusque response in a highly charged political situation. She has the power to make recommendations to management about the handling of the situation and to settle matters informally, if both parties are willing to do so, even at such a late stage. Where it is appropriate, she will be able to investigate and report to the Committee, which will decide what action to recommend.

We recognise that cases of this kind can be difficult for both the complainant and the person complained about, so they will be handled differently from normal complaints. A far higher level of confidentiality will be observed, and names will be released only if the commissioner concludes that bullying or harassment has occurred. As hon. Members know, when the commissioner investigates the activities of a Member of this House, that fact is currently stated on the commissioner’s website, even though nothing is found against the vast majority of Members. The commissioner—like the Committee on Standards and, I believe, the Commission—thinks that that should not happen in the rare circumstances of these cases.

The Committee did not take the decision lightly to endorse the Commission’s proposals. We wanted to be sure that the existence of the formal stage of the process was not seen as an excuse for management to ignore their responsibilities towards both staff and Members. We consulted every Member of the House, and took comfort in the fact that there were very few replies on that point. We did not agree to this change until we were sure that real measures were in place to prevent problems from arising in the first place, and to stop problems needlessly escalating if they did arise.

We wanted to make it clear that this matter is primarily the responsibility of the management of the House. I welcome the fact that the respect policy recognises that difficulties may arise not simply from a Member’s behaviour, but from other behaviour. At the very first stage, it requires line managers to consider whether there is a resourcing, capacity or other issue that needs to be addressed.

We wanted staff training to make sure both that staff are appropriately trained to deal with what I shall call “customers” in difficult situations, and that managers understand their responsibilities under the new system. We understand that training has begun, and that there will be more training for staff of the House to implement the change.

We wanted it to be clear to everyone that the bar for investigations by the commissioner would be high, and we are satisfied that the new policy spells that out. We were also concerned that the new system should work for staff. We asked the House authorities to assure us that staff whose first language is not English will be adequately supported, and I am glad to say that that is included in management guidance.

We are also grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for her work with the House authorities and with us. She worked with the House authorities to make sure that the human resources processes in place recognise that making a complaint to the commissioner is a last resort. She reviewed the procedures for investigation so that there is a separate appropriate procedure for use in such cases. I have already noted the higher level of confidentiality. The new procedure also involves the complainant, as well as the MP, in checking the facts in the commissioner’s memorandum. Both parties will of course have the opportunity to appear before the Committee if there are further proceedings.

There is one final safeguard. The Committee recognises that this is a major change, so we recommend that it is reviewed in the next Parliament, and we invite the House to give the House of Commons Commission, together with the Committee, powers to suspend or renew the policy. I expect the findings of the review to be published and possibly debated, if that is felt necessary.

Let me repeat that I do not expect many cases to be brought under the policy. I do not think that bullying is widespread, but that should not be an excuse not to have an effective means to deal with it. I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House would condemn bullying in any other workplace. This motion gives us the opportunity to make it clear that we will not tolerate it in our own workplace. I hope that the House will agree to the motion.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I place on the record the thanks of the House of Commons Commission to the Chair of the Committee on Standards, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), for his and the Committee’s work on this very important matter? As with everything it does, the Committee took it extremely seriously, put in a lot of work and came up with something that is thought through and detailed, and does exactly the job we had hoped it would do.

I want to pick up on two of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. The first is that it is absolutely essential that the policy is fair to all parties. It is vital that the House has a respect policy that looks after staff, but it is equally of the utmost importance that it is one in which Members have full buy-in and can feel confident, because otherwise it would not be fair to both sides. The second point is that there are no outstanding complaints at this time. By far the majority of Members treat the staff with the courtesy and respect that they so richly deserve. When it is made clear to them, most Members who have from time to time been errant in their behaviour immediately apologise to the members of staff concerned. The policy is as much a preventive measure as something to deal with a problem, and it puts us into the category of best practice employers. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman framed the opening of the debate is very much what the Commission had hoped for.

I will briefly set out why the policy is so important to the Commission. The Commission is of course the statutory legal employer of House staff, and it therefore has a very important duty of care towards them. Without effective policies on bullying and harassment, the House is more vulnerable to legal charges. There are of course policies in place for bullying and harassment of members of staff by their line managers and employers and for relations between Members and Members’ staff, but there is a gap between members of the House service and Members of the House in that, as was pointed out, we are rather more customers than employers. In that respect, the problem is that unlike the customers of most establishments, who can be shut out by the establishment’s owner if they are felt to be bullying or harassing the staff, it would be unthinkable for Members to be excluded. We therefore require a policy that works, and the respect policy seeks to address that situation.

Notwithstanding the fact that occurrences are very rare, some 7% of staff—nearly 100—experienced some form of harassment, according to a survey of staff, in the previous 12 months. For one in six of those affected, the harassment took the form of repeated incidents involving the same individual. The proportions are small, but that suggests that something like 20 to 25 House staff may experience ongoing problems with one or more individuals.

As the Committee’s report sets out, the policy initially agreed by the Commission in June 2011 proved to be flawed. It was based on policies used by other employers, but it did not fully take into account the special relationship that exists between House staff and Members. I reiterate that the Commission is very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking on this unenviable task. We believe that it has produced something that provides a proper mechanism for dealing with the rare circumstance of the most serious cases. The Committee has concluded that the revised policy is fair to all parties, as I have mentioned. On that basis, the Commission both thanks the Committee and commends the policy to the House for its endorsement.

I should note that, assuming the House agrees to the motion, the policy will come into effect immediately, but it will not be retrospective.

[Kevin Barron]

The hon. Gentleman says that the policy will not be retrospective. However, if somebody has a difficult relationship at the moment, something that has gone on during the past few days, weeks or months might be added to a complaint to the commissioner if she felt that it ought to be investigated. There are no such cases whatever to my knowledge, but just in case there are, I thought that we should mention that the policy would be retrospective in relation to such behaviour over many months or years that is considered at some point in the future.

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to the Chair of the Committee for intervening to make that point. Of course, at the moment no complaints are extant, so there will be nothing retrospective about complaints that we know about and have dealt with. However, if a complaint is made now, it will of course be subject to this policy.

The House greatly values its staff and the exceptional work that they do in supporting us all. An effective respect policy is a very important part of delivering the Commission’s aim to be exemplary employer. I commend the policy to the House.

All-party Parliamentary Groups

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That–

(1) this House approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2013-14, HC 357, on All-Party Parliamentary Groups, and the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups contained in Annex 1 of that Report.

(2) the Resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989, 29 July 1998, 7 February 2011 and 12 March 2012, relating to the registration of interests be further amended with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament by:

(a) leaving out paragraphs 3 and 4; and

(b) inserting a new paragraph 3:

“Chairs of All-Party Parliamentary Groups shall be responsible for registering the matters specified in the rules for such groups and for the group’s adherence to the Guide to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups”; and

(3) the Committee on Standards shall have power to update the Guide to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups from time to time and to make such minor changes to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups as are necessary to ensure the effective operation of the Register of APPGs and the regulatory regime applying to such groups.

I am delighted that the House is able to debate the report, which sprang out of Mr Speaker’s recognition that all-party group regulation needed to be reconsidered to ensure that it remained appropriate. As I recall, both you in a previous life, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I were members of the working group that was set up. It was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who unfortunately is unable to be with us tonight, although he would have liked to have been here. The Select Committee on Standards built on the proposals of the Speaker’s working group but we also conducted our own investigation. The lay members of the Committee played a full part in this investigation and their presence meant that we had the power for the first time to see ourselves as others see us. I can assure the House that lay members may be friends but in private they have no hesitation in being critical friends. In my view, their ability to be critical friends is precisely what makes them worth having on the Committee. I am sure that view is shared by all members of the Committee. As a result of their involvement we know that the Committee’s proposals command the support of people who have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the way this place works and the wider issues involved in all-party group regulation.

As part of our work, the Committee joined with the Administration Committee to get some hard facts about the way in which all-party parliamentary groups operate. We surveyed all APPGs to find out the range of support they received and the frequency of their meetings, and besides that quantitative evidence we took qualitative evidence from colleagues from external organisations involved with APPGs, from those who reported on them and from critics as well.

I do not think we should be embarrassed about APPGs. Indeed, I would be surprised if more than a handful of us were not involved in APPG work. APPGs enable groups of Members to inform themselves about policy. They allow us to work across party lines and to work across both Houses. They allow us to educate ourselves. Today’s all-party Whip shows that Members have opportunities to meet with UK ambassadors from many different countries, hear about the launch of the Green Investment Bank’s new scheme to help local authorities install energy-efficient street lighting, look at the links between mental health and problem debt, or hear about immigration detention in the UK from Shami Chakrabarti or social work from Martin Narey—that is only some of the meetings that are taking place today under the all-party group system. There is a great opportunity for Members of this House—for legislators—to hear from experienced people on many issues.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to the various APPGs with which I am closely involved, and other declarations of interest. One APPG today met a group that included over 60 members of the freight industry. Members of the House were able to hear from them, and were informed by a response from Baroness Kramer. That knowledge would not be able to be received in any other way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Kevin Barron]

My hon. Friend’s point is well put. I am no expert on freight but if I wanted to be and I was involved in making legislation in this House, that is the type of opportunity that is available to share experience from outside.

APPGs come in all shapes and sizes, from a few people effectively acting as a friendship group for a particular country to groups such as the parliamentary and scientific committee, which provides a way for parliamentarians and the science community to communicate with one another, often through major events. APPGs provide a forum for parliamentarians to press for change. They also provide a forum in which outside organisations working on the same topic can communicate with one another.

It is true that APPGs provide a forum in which outsiders can promote policy to Members of Parliament. I think it is reasonable for us to listen to those who want to lobby us, whether they are charities, businesses or knowledgeable individuals. Their ideas will only be taken up if we think they are good. This is a Parliament—a place where people talk. We talk to one another in formal proceedings, but, even more, we talk to people outside this place, both formally and informally. We need to do that to do our job, so there should be as few barriers as possible to people talking to MPs. Freedom of association is one of the rights protected by the European convention on human rights. Nobody wants to stop MPs talking to each other or to those outside this place, but we could not stop, even if we were mad enough to want to try. Any regulatory regime has to be proportionate, or all-party groups’ activities will simply be driven underground.

It is fair to say that there is a suspicion about all-party groups and at least a danger that they could be misused, so we need a regime that reduces the chance of such misuse. Before I go into that, I just wish to say that I hope last week’s events in this place made it clear that existing rules already prohibit Members from using all-party groups for personal gain and that the Committee on Standards will have no hesitation in condemning those who seek to misuse them.

Our proposals in this report are based on five principles: ensuring parliamentary control of all-party groups; ensuring responsibility and accountability; financial transparency; improved understanding; and proportionality. On parliamentary control, it is already a requirement that groups should meet to elect officers at Westminster on a sitting day and that the meetings and annual general meetings should be advertised on the all-party notice. We also propose an increase in the quorum; that only parliamentarians should have voting rights in all-party groups; and that all members—MPs and peers—should be entitled to vote in an all-party group.

Our proposals on responsibility and accountability are designed to ensure that groups are regulated from this House and it is clear who is responsible for compliance. Rather than having a contact officer, all-party groups should have a chair from the Commons, who will have responsibility for ensuring that the group complies with the rules. All-party group notices should give a parliamentary e-mail contact—we are working on that at the moment. We recognise that external support can be invaluable, but if these groups are really of interest to Members surely we should be willing to provide some resource to support them. Complaints about all-party groups could be and will be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Members are already responsible for registering benefits they each receive as a result of APPG membership, such as visits or hospitality, and that will remain. We also recommend that APPGs that receive £12,500 per year will need to submit annual income and expenditure statements. Benefits in kind will need to be described and have an approximate financial value ascribed to them. We believe that is a sensible thing to do, but that does not take individual members of all-party groups away from their individual responsibilities to register such matters.

On improving understanding, we want there to be clear APPG branding, accompanied by clearer rules about the informal work Members undertake which is not linked to APPGs. The House has formal Committees and, in APPGs, a mechanism for MPs and peers to work together outside that formal framework. Members are entirely free to work outside those frameworks, but we should not be attaching the logo of Parliament to groups that do not comply with the regulatory requirements. Some offers were made during the debate and with the working group on getting harsher on this, but we genuinely believe that such an approach would drive people away from the formal all-party group structure into an ad hoc system, which would have little, if any, influence. We want to make sure that that is avoided. There also needs to be far better information on APPGs on the parliamentary website. I am pleased to say that the all-party Whip is now at least available on the intranet.

On proportionality, as well as making sure that the financial transparency regime is effective without being onerous, we propose to end the requirement for there to be 20 qualifying members before a group can be set up. In practice, it has meant that colleagues have signed up to groups on the principle that they might some day be interested, or because if they wished to found a group themselves their colleagues would be more likely to support them. I have had an interest in several all-party groups for most of my time in this place, so I know that that is the case. Members trade names. They may say, “Well, you can put me down for that one, as long as you don’t expect me to do any work in that area.” We feel that that behaviour should now end, and there is detailed recommendation about how to do that.

It was impossible to distinguish between groups that attracted a great deal of parliamentary interest and those that were, shall we say, more specialist, and we feel that there should be more transparency in that area. Let me end with a quote from our report. It says:

“No one wants a Parliament where Members have no interaction with wider society, take no steps to inform themselves about matters of public concern or are simply lobby fodder for whichever party they represent. APPGs perform a useful function in allowing Members to set the agenda and in allowing wider groups to put their case to interested parliamentarians within a framework which ensures transparency and control by Parliament.”

I hope that the House will agree to our proposals, which are intended to produce such a framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron]

I am very pleased that the report has the support of the House. I have heard the wider debate on the issues. Paragraph (3) of the motion gives the Committee licence to make minor changes without necessarily coming back to the Floor of the House, but we will use that in a sensible and proper manner, if at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Standards

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Let me first say to the Leader of the House that we did point out the issues about Members of the House of Lords not having constituents and that a suspension from this House meant a suspension of pensions and salaries as well. The reason we used the analogy in this case is that a Member of the other place was caught by the same sting, for want of a better expression, and we therefore thought it right and proper that we ought to look at it.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out why the Committee on Standards considered that Mr Mercer’s actions merited, as we have heard, the longest suspension since 1947, with only one exception, which, as Members will know, ended up in the criminal courts with a conviction.

The House is a place for policy debate, which happens formally in the Chamber and informally outside it. Members do their best to explore different points of view and to establish the underlying facts, and almost every Member works closely with external groups to do so. That is entirely legitimate. The Leader of the House mentioned the Committee’s report on all-party groups. He will see in that report, which we are pleased to be debating next week, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), stated very clearly in her evidence that lobbying is part of the parliamentary process. Members talk to a lot of people, they listen to a lot of people, and then they make up their minds. The rules allow MPs to have external interests, but they do not permit paid advocacy. It is not acceptable to receive money in return for acting in Parliament or to use your position as an MP to get advantage, either for yourself or another person. That has been against the rules for centuries. Members who do this undermine our democracy. As this case shows, it is not possible to evade the rules simply by paying lip service to them; Members’ actions matter.

I remind the House that this case is not, like many cases that have grabbed the headlines for many years now, a legacy case from the expenses scandal of 2004 to 2009. It is not a legacy—it happened during the lifetime of this Parliament. That puts some of our feelings into perspective. I hope that Members will read and take notice of what we have said.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On legacy cases, was my right hon. Friend surprised to see the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority quoted recently on the front page of a Sunday newspaper criticising the process, despite the existence of a memorandum of understanding on these matters between this House and IPSA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron]

Yes. That relates to the preceding case the Standards Committee dealt with, which has not been debated in this House. I was very surprised indeed, because we have had a memorandum of understanding with IPSA since 2010. If it is felt that this House should take action against a Member—only this House can do that—the case will initially go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and then to our Committee, which will produce a report and make recommendations. IPSA has never approached us on such an issue in any of the past four years. If any UK organisation knows about Members’ expenses post 2009-10, it is IPSA, so I was not particularly happy about that.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all-party groups, so many of which have secretariats from outside this place, are the next big scandal waiting to happen, and that the only way to clean up the situation is for Members themselves to take responsibility for the groups by funding them and, if they care about the issues so much, using their own resources to make sure the process is clean? The Mercer case could be the first of many, if we are not careful.

[Kevin Barron]

The Standards Committee did not know that this would come up when we started looking at all-party groups. The right and proper time to discuss those matters will be during next Tuesday’s debate.

The Committee on Standards has been critical of media stings in the past, but the case under discussion was not one in which a Member was misrepresented or had made a single error. It was a sustained course of conduct, not an ill-advised response to a single “fishing” incident.

There has been some confusion over the respective roles of the Committee and the commissioner. The commissioner is a finder of fact. She investigates and presents her findings to the Committee, and sometimes those findings include advice on the interpretation of the rules. The Committee entirely agreed with the commissioner’s conclusion that Mr Mercer’s actions had inflicted significant reputational damage on the House and its Members. The commissioner does not have a role in recommending a penalty. It is for the Committee to decide on the recommended penalty, and MPs and lay members play a full part in that discussion.

In this case, the Committee took into account the gravity of the offence and the penalties given in similar cases in the past. In fact, there are very few similar cases, and in most of them the Members concerned were no longer in Parliament by the time the Committee’s investigations were over. There is very little we can do about ex-Members.

As our minutes show, the Committee seriously considered an even heavier penalty than the one on which we eventually agreed. It is disappointing when colleagues say that the Committee overturned the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards and suggest that there are fundamental disagreements between the Committee and the commissioner, because that is not the case. Clearly, no system is beyond improvement. Indeed, the Committee will itself hold an inquiry into how the House’s disciplinary process could be improved, and the commissioner will contribute to that process as fully as possible. However, public confidence is not helped when Members of Parliament attack the integrity of the system rather than try to understand the Committee’s work, or when they claim that the Committee has overturned the commissioner’s findings, without appreciating the complexities of individual cases.

I do not want to go into this in great detail, but on 8 April my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who sadly is not in his place, asked an urgent question and said that the Committee’s proceedings should be open

“so that people can see on what basis the Committee overturns the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards”. —[Official Report, 8 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 124.]

There are three pages in that report that clearly explain our decision in relation to that of the commissioner. I advise Members of the House to read our Committee’s proceedings before dashing to the media to grab a few headlines.

I would have more sympathy with Members’ calls for reform to increase public trust if the proposals of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, made in December 2012, to update the code of conduct and the guide to the rules had been debated in the House. We are still waiting for that to happen.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am probably interrupting the Chair of the Standards Committee to make a different point, but on public confidence, why did Mr Mercer hear about the contents of his report before it was published from journalists briefed by people who were party to the report? Is that not a breach of privilege that the right hon. Gentleman should take very seriously?

[Kevin Barron]

We are undertaking a form of inquiry into what happened and this is all I can say at the moment, but it looks as though what was in the media came out before the decision had actually been taken. We may make a further report to the House at some stage if we feel that it is necessary. However, I have no concerns about that. The integrity of the Committee stands good. We take decisions not on the basis of party politics, but on the basis of the commissioner’s memorandum, the precedents of actions we have taken in the past and what is presented to us. What happened was unhelpful, but it may have been based on pure speculation about this case. As has been said, there are other cases, one of which—in the other place—is directly related to this media sting.

Finally, if any Member has issues about a report, its coverage in the media or anything else, they can talk to me or any Committee member. We hold no party political proceedings on such matters. We are trying to get this place beyond what came to light in 2009, and it would be most helpful if all Members kept that in mind when talking about Standards Committee reports. I hope that the House will accept this report.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know, not least from the many occasions on which I have quite properly received representations from hon. Members, that it is important to Members of this House that they can advise and support their constituents on many issues arising from asylum and immigration and that they can do so effectively through their contact with the Home Office and its associated agencies. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration to respond directly to my hon. Friend on the subject of the cost of the asylum immigration hotline. If he is happy to do so, he might like to have a direct conversation about how we can best represent our constituents in a way that serves their interests.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find adequate time for discussion of the outstanding reports from the Standards Committee that await debate and of the report from its predecessor, the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on the proposed revision to the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members? That report was published in December 2012, yet we are still waiting for time for a debate in the House.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to say that I had hoped that we might have resolved those issues before now. We have not and I hope that we will soon. We and other stakeholders across the House need to establish consensus not only on that important issue but on how we might take forward the issues that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee are considering as regards a more general revision of the code of conduct. I hope that in our conversations and my representations to his Committee we might be able to strengthen the work of the Standards Committee and give greater reassurance to the public and our constituents about the independence and robustness of the processes we have in place.

Parliamentary Standards

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who expresses that point very straightforwardly and well. I think the House will know that if at any point the lay members of the Standards Committee were to present an opinion to the House which had the effect of dissenting from the decisions of the Committee as a whole, the House would take that very seriously indeed.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Select Committee on Standards adjudicates on individual cases but also has a duty under Standing Order No. 149 to consider any matters relating to the conduct of Members. On 22 March, before any of the current controversy arose, the Committee received a thoughtful paper from lay members on their impressions of their first year on the Committee from January 2013 to January 2014, which was also sent to you, Mr Speaker, and was placed in the Committee’s programme for future discussion. The Committee has already decided to examine the current system for consideration of complaints about Members of Parliament, to consider improvements as required. We will be drawing up detailed terms of reference over the next few weeks, drawing on the lay members’ reflections. The lay members will continue to play a leading role in this work.

The Committee has reported the lay members’ paper to the House and it is available on our website. As the lay members say, it is a matter of regret that the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ recommendations on standards issues have not yet come before the House but the Committee is determined to lead on these issues in the interests of maintaining the integrity of this House.

The Committee does not think it is appropriate to keep a running commentary on its decisions in individual cases, but at our meeting today the Committee authorised me to say that it continues to believe that its individual adjudications are impartial, fair and non-partisan. It is extremely important that those who express opinions on these cases both within the House and outside it should have read closely the careful reasons and evidence-based conclusions set out in each report. The Committee will continue to work closely and co-operatively with the commissioner to reach objective, fair and non-partisan adjudications.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Standards Committee. What he illustrates is, as I said at the conclusion of my response to the urgent question, that this is a matter for this House, and the House does look to the Standards Committee, not least to advise the House on how our system of regulation of Members’ conduct can be as robust as possible. I hope that, in consultation with the Standards Committee and in discussion among the parties, we can ensure that any views that come forward, not least from the lay members, are reflected in changes if necessary.

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

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is excellent news.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Tagged on to this debate is a report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair, that we published on the day of the Bill’s Second Reading. It was all a bit of a hurry because of the Government’s haste to get these provisions into Parliament. On 18 July I wrote to the Leader of the House with some major concerns that we had about the Bill’s implications for Members of Parliament and the consequential implications for the codes of conduct—our own rules in relation to Members’ activities.

The House of Commons has long been concerned about lobbying. As early as 1695, the House resolved:

“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”

Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states:

“No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House.”

Indeed, the “Guide to the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct of Members” makes it clear that prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying is usually understood to consist of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. Under the code of conduct as currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule. We noted that the requirements for the registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries in the register of consultant lobbyists. There was grave concern that had it remained as first published, there would have been major conflict between Members of this House and organisations outside.

We recognised that although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out consultant lobbying would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. None the less, we also recognised that that could change if the House changed its rules to permit such activity, though we considered that to be extremely unlikely. If that were the case, Members would then not be immune from the general, nor should they be. If the advocacy rule were ever rescinded, a Member who acted as a consultant lobbyist should be subject to the same rules as any other such lobbyist.

We had to draw up the report very quickly because of the timetable that we have had for the Bill. We brought up two major concerns in our conclusion. First, we said:

“In our view, the difficulties about the way in which the legislation applies to Members of Parliament would be swept away if paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 was removed.”

The Government’s amendment 29 does that, I am pleased to say. As has been clearly pointed out in the debate, under the paragraph I would be potentially restricted to lobbying the Secretary of State or a senior civil servant only on the basis of a constituent having contacted me about an issue. That would be nonsensical. It would mean that to be able to do the work that I have been doing on public health for many years in this Chamber, I would first have to get a constituent to write to me about it. It could also affect my ability to go to a recognised charity that is concerned about public health issues and work with it in the hope of getting more effective legislation. We all do that, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I thank the Government and the Leader of the House and his team for paying attention to the report that my right hon. Friend put together. That shows that it can be done. We improve legislation the more we talk and the more we listen. This is a very good example of that, and I hope that there will be many more examples to come.

[Mr Barron]

On the two issues that we were concerned about, the Government have seen sense. This hasty piece of legislation has been changed so that we, as Members of Parliament, are not prevented from representing our constituents on wider issues. The day this Chamber can listen only to advice coming from the Executive, we may as well be in Stalinist Russia, and that is not something that I would feel comfortable with.

[Mr Redwood]

A couple of Opposition Members have raised the issue of paid advocacy and I want to reassure anyone following our debate that no one in this Chamber is saying that MPs should be allowed to receive top-up money from outside this House and then advocate the cause of those paying them. That is clearly wrong. It is against the rules and nothing in the Bill would facilitate it. I think we all agree on that, so that argument is a red herring.

The issue we are debating is the crucial one of the legitimate role of an MP and whether it can continue untrammelled by a Bill that could inadvertently capture legitimate things that an MP does. If the Leader of the House is going to guide us to reject the new clause, I want reassurance that the lobbying element of an MP’s job will be completely untouched by the way in which he wants the Bill to end up. In moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made it clear that he is trying to resolve the issue of the legitimate work of an MP.

A very important part of an MP’s job is to be the chief lobbyist for their constituency but, as colleagues have said, we may also wish to be a lobbyist for another interest group that is not based in our constituency. It may be a very important part of a shadow Minister’s job to represent an industry, charity or group of underprivileged people who are not in their constituency, in order to shape national policy. Individual Members may wish to pursue similar themes, even if they are not prominent in their constituencies. It enriches our debates and makes for a fairer society if anyone from outside this House can find MPs who support their cause and who can be their advocates. We are lobbyists for all sorts of groups and interests throughout the country, whether they are in our constituencies or not. It is very important that a court or external body does not assume that, because we are paid a salary and because we lobby Ministers on behalf of the interests of people and companies throughout the country, we are subject to the rules under discussion.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not seeking special privilege. We are saying that this Bill is designed to stop abuse of the lobbying system and I want a reassurance from the Leader of the House that it has not been worded in a way that inadvertently could trap MPs as if we were an abuse of the lobbying system, when the healthy expression of lobbying, through and of MPs, is fundamental to our democracy. I think that view is shared throughout the Chamber. The great difference between a free society and a tyranny or an authoritarian regime is that any group, interest, person or company in our country can try to find an MP who thinks they have a fair cause, and if they persuade an MP of that—without any payment of money or anything inappropriate—their cause can run in this House and have the chance of influencing Ministers.

I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that the Bill will leave absolutely no doubt that we can be lobbied and that we can lobby, and that we are the free lobbyist for anyone with a good cause.

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

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Oh, the hon. Gentleman said “please”! Okay, but I will give way to the Chairman of the Standards Committee.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Standards Committee met this morning and has agreed a report on the implications of this Bill for Members of Parliament, and we are making strong recommendations that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 should be removed and that there should be a sub-paragraph in paragraph 6 stating that any payments we get from IPSA cannot be interpreted as money for lobbying. I hope the Leader of the House will take this into account and make sure the requisite amendments are made before the Bill leaves this House at the end of next week.

[Mr Lansley]

My colleagues will, of course, take what the Standards Committee has said very much into account, and I think that illustrates, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, why the Bill has not been badly drafted. This is not the first time this has happened. It happens with every piece of legislation in my experience. Sometimes we have to have belt, braces and a piece of string to make sure everybody is absolutely convinced that we are doing what we intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Members will know that I chair the Standards Committee, and this morning we agreed a report on this Bill and how it might affect us in our role as Members of Parliament. It was published just half an hour ago at 4.30 pm and I assume it is now in the Vote Office if anyone wants to look at it, but I want to give a brief overview of what we found.

Shortly after the publication of the Bill, Members received an e-mail from the director of Justice in Financial Services, Joe Egerton. He was concerned about the effect the Bill would have on us. I was contacted by several Members from both sides of the House about this matter, and last week I gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on its investigation into the matter.

Members will know that there have been concerns about lobbying for many years. As early as 1695 the House resolved that:

“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”

Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states that no Member shall

“act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House”.

Indeed, the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members makes it clear that the prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers, but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying as it is normally understood consists of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. As the code of conduct is currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule.

We also note that the requirements for registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries on the register of consultant lobbyists. Although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out “consultant lobbying” would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. While we recognise that that might change, we think it is important that problems do not arise.

As Chair of the Standards Committee, I wrote to the Leader of the House and he responded on 30 August, saying,

“I know that there has been some misunderstanding about whether the normal activities of Members of Parliament would be captured under the definition of consultant lobbying as set out in the Bill. I would therefore like to be quite clear that it is absolutely not the intention of the Bill to do so.”

Although we welcome that assurance, we still have some reservations about the Bill as drafted. People will know the exemptions it contains, one of which is to protect our use of privilege in this place. That is set out in schedule 1(1), which, in effect, protects the provisions intended to assert the continuing force of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Although some question remains about whether or not that could change in the future, we have no problem with it in the context of this Bill.

The problem lies where schedule 1 deals with Members’ communications on behalf of their constituents, as the provisions are restrictive. We believe that the main mischief in the Bill’s current drafting is in paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which contains the other exception for Members in Parliament. It states:

“A Member of Parliament who makes communications within section 2(3) on behalf of a person or persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying.”

The paragraph goes on to state that

“‘resident’ has the meaning which it has for the purposes of section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983”.

Simply put, we believe that the Bill, as drafted, would stop us going beyond representing a constituent who has contacted us about a matter; it would severely restrict me, as a Member of Parliament, in communicating with Ministers on public health matters and on many other things. My Committee’s report recommends that we remove paragraph (2) of schedule 1 altogether and that we add a sub-paragraph to paragraph 6, stating that a reference to payment does not include a reference to the salary of a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

We are greatly concerned about this particular issue. As the House will know, there are five constituencies in Northern Ireland for which no Member takes his or her seat in this House. People living in those constituencies often want parliamentary representation and so come to other Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in order to gain it. That matter needs to be given consideration.

[Mr Barron]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I entirely agree; my Committee thinks that we are in a dangerous area in respect of doing our job as Members of Parliament and being a voice for our constituents or a voice for wider issues in society. Simply put, if things were restricted in the way that the Bill now envisages, I would be getting my information from the Executive rather than from organisations that can come here to lobby me as a legislator and give me wider knowledge than perhaps the Executive would, on occasion, want me to have when we are legislating. I believe it is important that we address that.

The registrar of consultant lobbyists is given sweeping powers under this Bill. It is perfectly possible that the courts and the registrar will clarify that the definition does not extend so far, to us, but primary legislation should be unambiguous about such matters—this Bill is exactly the opposite. The letter from the Leader of the House contained an offer in relation to sorting out this problem, and I hope that this will be taken seriously. The Committee would like to see it done while the Bill is being considered by the House of Commons, if we agree, in the next week or so.

Summer Adjournment

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I hope I do not have to take my full eight minutes, but I sat in this House yesterday listening to Prime Minister’s Question Time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) asked the Prime Minister why he had not replied to a letter he had sent to him in February, to which the Prime Minister replied:

“I will look urgently at this case, because I reply to hon. Members’ correspondence right across the House, and I always will.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1090.]

Last month, I brought up at Prime Minister’s Question Time the fact that I had written a letter to the Prime Minister on 8 May this year about public health and Lynton Crosby’s involvement, or non-involvement, in public health matters. I asked several questions, including:

“Have you ever discussed cigarette packaging policy with Lynton Crosby? Have you ever discussed minimum alcohol pricing with Lynton Crosby?”

The last question was:

“Were the Government’s legislative priorities discussed at the meeting which reportedly took place at Chequers on Thursday 21 February, involving you, George Osborne, Ed Llewellyn and Lynton Crosby?”

I have not yet, months later, had a reply from the Prime Minister to that letter.

As I said, I brought the matter up at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 19 June. I told the Prime Minister I had written to him on 8 May and had not yet received a reply, and briefly mentioned that the letter was about Lynton Crosby and alcohol and standard packaging of cigarettes. He did not reply, instead saying:

“I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me on anything.”

If that is the case—if he believes that—why he cannot reply to my letter of 8 May is beyond me. The Prime Minister continued:

“The only opinions that I am interested in are how we destroy the credibility of the Labour party, on which he has considerable expertise, though I have to say that he is not doing as good a job as the Labour party.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 891.]

It is perfectly clear what agenda Mr Crosby is setting. Members may recall that in yesterday’s debate on managing risk in the NHS, I intervened on my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary, saying:

“My right hon. Friend knows well…that in the past two months there has been a marked change in the coalition Government’s approach on the national health service. It started with the absurd argument that the problems in accident and emergency departments were the result of the 2004 GP contract. Is it not more likely that what is happening is that Mr Lynton Crosby is telling Government Members to squeeze the lead that Labour has had over the Conservative party for many decades on the NHS?”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1177.]

That is exactly what is happening. I went on to mention that that is not only demoralising NHS staff and frightening NHS patients, but is doing enormous damage to the credibility of politicians up and down the land. I got an e-mail yesterday from a Conservative Member who was tabling an early-day motion. He said he thinks we should get party politics out of the NHS. I agree.

I am concerned about the non-reply to my letter for several reasons. The Prime Minister gave his view on this matter on 23 March 2012 in a No. 10 press release:

“The Prime Minister is leading Government action to tackle binge-drinking culture by supporting proposals a minimum unit price for alcohol.”

It says the Home Secretary is involved in that, and the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

“So we’re going to attack it from every angle. More powers for pubs to stop serving alcohol to people who are already drunk. More powers for hospitals not just to tackle the drunks turning up in A&E—but also the problem clubs that send them there night after night. And a real effort to get to grips with the root cause of the problem. And that means coming down hard on cheap alcohol.”

We had a statement yesterday from the Home Office, again, which is most likely to view alcohol as a law and order issue. I wish that people would view alcohol as an issue of health and the damage it is doing to the young generation. Thirty years ago, people of my age—men in their 60s—died of alcohol-related diseases. Young men and women in their 20s are dying of cirrhosis of the liver now: not just one or two, but many of them. We must take a hold of this problem and the Prime Minister and the Government are not doing that.

During the alcohol strategy consultation statement yesterday, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) asked a question that relates directly to getting a grip on the price of alcohol. She asked whether the Minister was aware of the evidence from Sheffield, which is where the original review was carried out on alcohol pricing and consumption in areas such as my constituency, which is just outside Sheffield. The review stood the test many years ago and stands the test now, so to hear Ministers say that there is no evidence on alcohol pricing and consumption is complete nonsense. I fear that Lynton Crosby and the people he has worked for in the past have more on that.

The hon. Lady asked:

“Is the Minister aware of the evidence from Sheffield that was published this morning and shows that the impact of having a threshold at duty plus VAT would be a decrease in consumption of one 400th of 1%?”

That is what the Government announced yesterday on health and alcohol, notwithstanding how A and Es up and down the land are swamped with people who have overindulged in alcohol not just on Friday and Saturday nights but midweek, too. Never mind the disease that alcohol creates; it creates chaos on our streets and in the hospitals, too. The hon. Lady went on:

“In other words, it will be meaningless.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1122.]

She is absolutely right.

I said yesterday that at the weekend the Faculty of Public Health withdrew from the Government’s responsibility group on the use of alcohol, as have Alcohol Concern, Cancer Research UK, the UK Health Forum and many other organisations. The Government are backing down and taking notice of industry, and the areas that affect public health are being left. Everybody ought to know that the dangers to public health in this century, as opposed to past centuries, are caused by individual lifestyles. The Government are ducking taking action on individual lifestyles in favour of industry. I thought I ought to put that on the record and I hope that one day I will get a reply to my letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on taking on the mantle of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) in trying to refer to the most constituents in the shortest time. I echo his concerns about dangerous dogs. We are doing a lot of work on that. Microchipping and other compulsory measures will help. People who have a legitimate right to go into a home, be they a postman, a midwife or a social worker, should not be bitten by a dog, especially a dog that is known to be dangerous. I want to pursue that matter. I have great sympathy for the postman who was bitten in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, as I do for the thousands who are bitten every year.

I will raise one or two serious matters from my constituency. The first relates to the A35, which runs through my constituency, including through Axminster, and on to the Dorset border. Recently, there have been a couple of fatal accidents on the A35 at the Hunters Lodge junction at Raymond’s Hill. In the first collision, a 60-year-old man from Plymouth died and two other people were injured. The second crash claimed the life of 82-year-old Pamela Manning from Harrow and her two elderly companions in the car were taken to hospital.

I have met the Highways Agency, Axminster town council and Uplyme parish council to discuss how we can improve the Hunters Lodge junction. Something must be done. Although there have been many accidents at the junction, the Highways Agency said at the meeting that there had been no fatalities. Unfortunately, they have now occurred, so it is essential that something is done, and I shall be working with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) on this issue.

The A303/A30 was mentioned in the financial statement. It should be dualled all the way from Honiton, right the way through those interesting stones in Wiltshire called Stonehenge, to London, so that we have a second arterial route into the west country, and to Devon and Cornwall in particular. Tourism is one of our great industries. Those who run businesses in the west country find that when the M5 is blocked, the A303/A30 is almost impassable. I look forward to its being dualled.

I would like to talk about health funding for primary care. The current age profile in Honiton and Axminster—to take two towns I represent—is estimated to be reflected nationally by 2035. The population is getting older. The doctors in Axminster say that the number of people calling them for advice has gone up from 6,000 to 18,000 in a year, and there are similar figures for Honiton. Health funding will have to recognise this trend. People breathe in the good clean air in Devon and live for a long time. I am pleased with that, but people will need to be treated more as they get older and that has to be recognised.

As we bask in the sunshine, we must remember that a year ago we were all under water. There were floods in Axminster, Uplyme, Seaton, Cullompton and Tiverton—all over my constituency—and many were caused by the blocking of rivers and tributaries. At the time, the Environment Agency said that it had so much to do just to help people who were already flooded that they could not do a great deal to manage the waterways, by dredging them and clearing blockages. Now is the time to do it: there is never a better time than when it is dry. What we do not want to do is just bask in this great sunshine. I welcome this great sunshine and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) congratulated the Government on providing it, even though I know he was only teasing.

[Mr Barron]

The sunshine is the only thing the Government have accepted responsibility for since 2010.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, even if I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. I think will keep it fairly light-hearted at this stage of the proceedings.

We need to remember that flooding took place. We need proper dredging of our rivers. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen on it. Now is the time to do it.

I have mentioned Mrs Ethelston’s school in Uplyme previously. We need a new school in the village and we are trying to put together a funding package locally. Government support is needed to make that happen. It is a very successful school with very high grades and it will be a great asset to the whole area, not just Uplyme.

My constituency runs from Exmoor down through the Blackdown hills, so I have a number of farmers in my constituency. They are concerned about yet another reform to the common agricultural policy. It seems that yet more bureaucracy will be heaped on them, rather than less. There is no level playing field: payments between them and those on the continent, or even between them and farmers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are all different. If we are to make a single market in food and agricultural products work, we need to pay farmers at a similar level. My argument over the years has been that we should either pay at a similar level or not pay at all, because otherwise we will distort everything.

We have had to negotiate a tough package in Europe. As a Conservative and part of the governing party, I cannot expect to go cap in hand to the Treasury for huge handouts over and above what the CAP provides. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look sympathetically at how we deliver environmental schemes and payments to farmers in a way that maintains the countryside—the beautiful grassland and hills in my constituency, which people come to visit from all over the place, including down from London and even the north of England.

People visit Devon, Cornwall and much of the west country because of their landscapes and the way they are managed. Who manages them? It is very much the farmers who manage them, and if we lose them, we will lose those landscapes. I look forward to a sympathetic reform and to trying to break the bureaucracy of the system. I rather fear that some of what comes from Europe will be somewhat bureaucratic, but let us hope we can make the best of it, because I am a great believer in good, traditional food that is well produced under high welfare standards, which is what our farmers deliver in this country.

Finally, may I wish you a very good recess, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am sure that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, you will be busy in your constituency, as will I and most Members of this House.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am delighted to add my support to the motion and have no hesitation in commending the three names before the House—Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman and Walter Rader.

The procedure to appoint lay members was modelled on that for the independent external members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I took part in the appointment process to ensure access to the experience of the Speaker’s Committee, although the final decision was a matter for the House of Commons Commission. We had a strong field and were able to put forward several names for the Commission to choose from, and as Members will see from the Commission’s report, the three candidates bring a range of valuable experience. I am confident in their sound judgment.

I welcome the fact that we are at last appointing lay members. Indeed, the previous Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, now the Government Chief Whip, commended the idea to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is one of the manifestations of his incomparable good judgement that his recent return to the Back Benches must have been one of the shortest on record; the Front Bench simply could not do without him. It is a pleasure to implement a recommendation in the House with such a history of Committee support.

I am particularly pleased that we are appointing three lay members. As we all know, parliamentary business can be unpredictable and in the past the Committee on Standards and Privileges has had to meet at short notice. The Committee on Standards will be able to meet only if a lay member is present, and appointing three lay members from the outset will reduce the danger of Committee business being disrupted. I have been a lay member myself. As colleagues will know, it was a role I played on the General Medical Council for several years. It is all too easy for any expert group to look inward and to lose a sense of perspective, which is why many professional disciplinary bodies, not just the GMC, contain lay members.

Even when professional judgements are perfect, there is a case for an independent element to ensure that all angles are considered and, most importantly, to provide as much reassurance as possible that regulation is conducted in the public interest. It will never be possible to convince everyone, but if an independent element in regulation works for doctors and solicitors, it should work for us as well. I hope that the lay members will not operate as outsiders riding shotgun to ensure the Committee behaves. I would like them to be an integral part of the Committee, and every one of those whose name is before the House has had experience of this sort of collective working. With the help of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Committee on Standards and Privileges has done its utmost to act rigorously, fairly and impartially. I hope that the participation of lay members will make it easier for the new Committee on Standards to demonstrate that it operates in such a way.

As I have said in previous debates, I regret that the lay members will not have a vote at this stage, although there is at least a mechanism that allows them to place their views formally on the record if they feel it necessary to do so. Although I look forward to legislation allowing lay members voting rights, we must remember that the current Committee on Standards and Privileges does not normally decide matters on division. In my time on the Committee, I can recollect only one vote, but even then the Committee went on to agree a unanimous report. If the new Committee follows that pattern, which I hope it will, any difference between lay members and others will be minimal, if not non-existent. In agreeing the motion, the House will take a step that should improve public perception of our disciplinary processes. I am confident that it will do more than that and will produce a better, fairer system. I am happy to support the motion.