Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Sir George Young.

[Sir George Young]

Nothing could be designed by the civil service that could come close to that level of scrutiny.

Code of Conduct

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Once an inquiry has been started by the commissioner, Members are obliged to co-operate and if they do not, they will face consequences from the Committee on Standards. That paragraph would then kick in.

The commissioner has concluded that being an hon. Member is a way of life. As he put it, an hon. Member

“is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”

I personally paused at the assertion that I am never off duty, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and other colleagues might have had the same reaction. I think that there are times when I am off duty. The commissioner’s conclusion is that an hon. Member’s conduct in both their private and wider public lives is excluded from the provisions of the code

“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.

This is a very high hurdle for investigation, and that approach was endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The amendment, if the subject of a complaint related only to the conduct of a Member in his or her private and personal life, would have the effect of providing that it could not be investigated. I am confident that the Members who have proposed the amendment have no wish to argue that Members should be subject to special treatment that is not available to others. The issue at stake is simply whether there would ever be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the commissioner to undertake an investigation into a matter that did not intersect at all with an hon. Member’s conduct in his or her public capacity. That is a matter for the House and each hon. Member to consider and it is not an issue on which it is appropriate for the Government to take a collective view, although I am personally sympathetic to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.

The House will also want to reflect on the offer made by the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee to take the House’s concern and address it in the revised guide, which, as I understand it, would leave the code unamended and insert an additional step in the process, in that the Committee would have to agree to the commissioner conducting an inquiry in this particular domain. I am sure that the House will welcome those offers and will want to reflect on them.

Another potential matter of contention is the application of the code to constituency matters. In his memorandum, the commissioner makes it clear that the way an hon. Member handles constituency business should not be adjudicable by the commissioner, and I agree. He suggests that the House would only wish to consider an instance that was

“so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House”.

I agree that it is very hard indeed to envisage these criteria being met.

On the third issue, in my submission to the review I supported proposals for redrafting the code in line with recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life

“so that the House has a clear basis to take action against any Member who has abused the IPSA scheme”.

The commissioner proposed to do that by means of a provision that stated that the use of public resources may not confer a political benefit. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has suggested a change, arising from its observation that it is unrealistic to expect that parliamentary activities legitimately funded from the political purse might never confer an indirect political benefit. The new code rightly makes it clear that Members should be clear that the use of public resources must always be in support of their parliamentary duties and should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. I agree that that formulation is in line with the original proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used the phrase “undue advantage”.

Finally, the commissioner considered and rejected a number of proposals that would involve separate rules for hon. Members who were former Ministers or who were Opposition Front Benchers. He did so on the basis of the principle that

“the Code should apply equally to all Members”.

That is a principle that I wholeheartedly support.

The second motion, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, is more straightforward. It seeks the approval of the twenty-first report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which recommends extending the scope of registration to individual staff of all-party groups who hold passes and to transfer the onus of registration from the registered contact of the group to the staff member him or herself. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House stated in the debate on all-party groups on 7 February last year, all-party groups can play a valuable role provided they are transparent. That measure seems sensible and does not represent an abdication of responsibility by hon. Members who are officers of all-party groups. Instead, it reflects the proper situation whereby individuals who have the benefits of being a pass holder in this place should personally accept the responsibilities that flow from that.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the House coming to a decision on these vexed matters.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Walker, do you intend to press your amendment to a Division?

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Owing to the debate under Standing Order 24 that has just ended, the time available for the debate on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill has been reduced. It is therefore the Government’s intention, if necessary, to make more time available to complete the debate that is about to commence at a later date. I will give more details in the business statement tomorrow.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that clarification.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I have here my own donor card—which I hope will not be activated in the very near future. We have taken a number of initiatives. For example, when people renew their driving licence they are encouraged to take out a donor card. The issue of presumed consent raises a whole lot of ethical questions, and I am sure they should be debated, but at present the Government’s energy is devoted to encouraging the take-up of donor cards.

royal assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Coinage (Measurement) Act 2011

Armed Forces Act 2011

Pensions Act 2011

Bill Presented

Household Safety (Carbon Monoxide Detectors) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Jason McCartney, Meg Munn, Julian Sturdy, Steve Baker, Andrew Percy, Laura Sandys, Dr Hywel Francis, Karl MᶜCartney, Andrew Stephenson, Chris White and Heidi Alexander, presented a Bill to introduce a requirement that a functioning carbon monoxide detector must be installed in residential properties; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 245).

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No, we simply do not have time, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his point across.

[Sir George Young]

I am not going to get involved in the operational responsibilities of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that they will discharge their responsibilities to the public sensibly today, and keep public order outside Parliament.

Backbench Business Committee

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That the following new Standing Order be made:—

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Backbench Business Committee, to determine the backbench business to be taken in the House and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days, allotted for backbench business.

(2) The committee shall consist of a chair and seven other Members, of whom four shall be a quorum.

(3) The chair and other members of the committee shall continue as members of the committee for the remainder of the Session in which they are elected unless replaced under the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).

(4) The chair and members of the committee shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).

(5) No Member who is a Minister of the Crown or parliamentary private secretary or a principal opposition front-bench spokesperson shall be eligible to be the chair or a member of the committee: the Speaker’s decision shall be final on such matters.

(6) The committee shall have power to invite Government officials to attend all or part of any of its meetings.

(7) The committee shall determine the backbench business to be taken—

(a) in the House on any day, or any part of any day, allotted under paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 14, and

(b) in Westminster Hall, in accordance with paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 10, and shall report its determinations to the House.

(8) At the commencement of any business in the House or in Westminster Hall which has been determined by the committee, a member of the committee shall make a brief statement of no more than five minutes explaining the committee’s reasons for its determination.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss motions 3 to 15 inclusive.

[Sir George Young]

This is the first time I have spoken with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I welcome you. As the Deputy Leader of the House said in the final stages of the debate that has just ended, we will not be moving motion 13, and I shall explain why not in a moment.

Today we are presenting the House with an opportunity to seize back some of the powers that have been taken away by the Government. We want to restore to Back-Bench Members greater control over the business of the House than they have had for not only a generation, but more than a century. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said earlier, in future, how long debates such as this last and whether they should be segmented into their component parts will be a matter for the House and the Back-Bench business committee, and no one will be more pleased about that than the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.

In tabling the motions on the Order Paper, we are pressing ahead with the implementation of the Wright Committee’s proposals by setting up the Back-Bench business committee that was endorsed so emphatically by the House in the previous Parliament, and delivering the first of the Government’s commitments on parliamentary reform from the coalition agreement. Although many members of the Wright Committee are no longer in the House, I pay tribute to them, and to those who remain, for a ground-breaking report produced in record time. I similarly commend the work of Parliament First, which is continuing to set the pace on reform.

Although many useful reforms were introduced in the last 13 years—debates in Westminster Hall, better sitting hours and the replacement of Standing Committees with Public Bill Committees—on some occasions the momentum was frustrated by the previous Government. If one looks at the delays and prevarications in setting up the Wright Committee and debating its report—and, indeed, reaching a conclusion on its central recommendation of a Back-Bench committee—they make the case more eloquently than anything else for the Government to relinquish their iron grip on the procedures and agenda of the House. Now we are finally giving the House a chance to debate and vote on that issue.

Business of the House

Debate between Nigel Evans and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with feeling on behalf of those who live in rural constituencies and are exposed to those higher prices. I shall share his concern with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and see that he receives a reply.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that community hospitals could “breathe easily”, which is great news for those of us who have such hospitals in our constituencies, as we know how important they are. Could we have an early debate on community hospitals so that I and others can raise issues of importance to us? For example, people in Clitheroe were promised a new hospital to replace the old community hospital, but the project was frozen last year—the people of Clitheroe should not have to wait.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful case. He will know that we exempted health expenditure from the difficult decisions that an incoming Government will have to take. He may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall on community hospitals, and I am sure that if he does so, the debate will be well attended by Members from both sides of the House.