Business of the House

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I shall certainly inform my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and he may be able to have a word with him himself because a week on Monday, on 2 February, there will be DCLG questions, when the hon. Gentleman may be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and raise this point.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend see whether there is an opportunity to debate radiotherapy so that I can make a plea on behalf of my constituents for a radiotherapy unit in the Lister hospital in Stevenage, rather than their having to travel miles to Northwood in Middlesex for their treatment? The Lister is getting lots of investment, but this extra item would be very good news indeed.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. and learned Friend has very successfully raised the matter on the Floor of the House by asking that question, and as always speaks up strongly for his constituents. There are regular opportunities to raise health matters on the Floor of the House, and I have no doubt he will continue to do so assiduously.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, apart from the partisan element of it. People do want more control over their own affairs. That is the way of the 21st century, and the Government are delivering it, although there is much more to do. The new general power of competence for local authorities, the devolving of planning functions to neighbourhoods, community rights to bid, local referendums, business rate retention by local authorities, city deals and growth deals are all in operation now. My Government colleagues and I want those policies to continue, so that there can be a greater degree of truly local control.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that England is more than a clutch of regions, and that, as such, it is entitled to its own devolution? In respect of the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we are not suggesting the establishment of an English Executive, and that in itself is a restraint on English devolution. Is it not right to give as much autonomy as possible to English MPs to make English laws? I personally think that there is a very strong case for the Norton proposals.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. and learned Friend has himself made a very strong case. He is right to say that England is more than a collection of regions. That is one of many reasons why a federal solution is not available to us in this context, and why it is important for the proper rights of the representatives—the parliamentary representatives —of England to be enhanced.

Devolution and the Union

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with all his points. Indeed, they were reflected by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who warned of the risk that other parts of the UK may feel discriminated against unless we proceed on the fundamental principle of democratic equality.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will make some progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made a powerful speech on the logic of devolution and the fact that devolution cannot be just a one-way street. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made a strong case for the application of local democracy to the Liverpool area. We heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), who made it clear that the Liberal Democrat manifesto to move from the Barnett formula to a needs-based formula has been superseded —that is the nicest way of putting it—by the post-referendum negotiations.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the SNP leader at Westminster, made a very interesting speech. When we look at the principles, I am not sure that we see a huge difference between what we have each said. I join him in congratulating the new leader of the SNP on her appointment. I pay tribute to Alex Salmond for his leadership. In fact, I will go so far as to quote Alex Salmond who, on the eve of the referendum rally said:

“To our friends in the rest of the United Kingdom, I say this. We don’t seek division, but rather equality”

That is certainly the point of the sponsors of this motion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made a typically cogent speech and talked about the importance of addressing the West Lothian question and financial fairness for his constituents, and also about the balance that we need to seek and retain across the UK—

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Let me come to that matter. I propose to work briefly and logically through the nations of the United Kingdom in my remarks and I will come to the question that has become known as English votes on English laws. However, I reject from the outset the idea that fairness for England is disruptive or dangerous for the United Kingdom. It is part of the effort to keep the United Kingdom together, just as fairness for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has always been.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of us in England, including many of my constituents, were willing the Scots to remain part of this great United Kingdom? However, we do want fairness for England. We still have a procedure in this place, Standing Order No. 97, that allows Scots MPs to deal with Scots legislation. Why on earth can we not do that for England? That is a simple solution to a simple problem. It is a matter of fairness.

[Mr Hague]

That is, indeed, one solution that could be adopted. I will come to the alternative solutions in a moment.

Let me finish what I was saying on Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his statement, the three main pro-UK parties made a vow that will be delivered whatever the outcome of the election next year and whatever deliberations we have about England. I know that it suits the Scottish National party to pretend that it has already been betrayed somehow, but the proposals for Scotland are not tied to our deliberations on other parts of the United Kingdom in the sense that they are conditional on them. It is right to consider those things together, but there was a vow. The British Government—this Administration and past Administrations—have delivered on devolution commitments in the past and will do so again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

All that I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that that did not work very well in Clacton.

The United Kingdom has undergone nearly two decades of constitutional change. The Leader of the House mentioned the most recent changes: the Scotland Act 2012 and the Wales Bill, which is currently before the other place. Vernon Bogdanor, the Prime Minister’s former tutor, described Labour’s recent 13 years in government as

“an era of constitutional reform comparable to that of the years of the Great Reform Act of 1832”

or the Parliament Act 1911. That era included the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, a Northern Ireland Assembly and a London Mayor and assembly, and of proportional representation in elections to all those bodies and in European elections. It included House of Lords reform and the ejection of all but 92 of the hereditary peers, the introduction of people’s peers and an elected Speaker, and the introduction of the country’s first-ever legislation requiring political parties to publish lists of their donors. We established an independent electoral commission. We introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gave the public a legal right to gain access to Government information, and we established the separation of powers through the creation of the Supreme Court.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, right to acknowledge that some important changes were made during those years, but the answer to the English question that Labour chose was to describe England as “the regions”, and to work on the basis of regional devolution. That has been rejected by the people, because the people say that England is a nation, and the demand from them is that England should have its say. There should be fairness for England, too. What is Labour going to do about that?

[Sadiq Khan]

I am trying my best—as did the Leader of the House—to follow the rational plan and structure of the speech, but I shall return to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question in a few moments.

I am proud of Labour’s record on constitutional reform. We can justifiably claim to be the party of constitutional reform, although it was not plain sailing. We learned from our experiences. We know a thing or two about what works and what does not work. We know about the importance of cross-party consensus to the success of constitutional change. The Leader of the House, as leader of the Conservative party, opposed the removal of any of the hereditary peers. We worked with him, and there are still 92 left, although we hope that they too will be gone soon. We learned from things that did not work, such as the failed referendum on a regional assembly in the north-east of England. We also know that there is unfinished business, most notably in regard to House of Lords reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am coming to that and to the proposals that might solve that problem without creating two classes of representation in this House of Commons. The answer has to be that when one part of the Union is 84% and the others are 8%, 5% and 3% respectively, we cannot secure the status of each nation through a blanket uniformity of provision. Indeed the rules needed to protect the minority—I would hope that the Leader of the House who used to be Secretary of State for Wales understands this—are bound to be different from the rules to protect a majority who can always outvote the minority in this House. If that is not recognised by this Government today in this House, it is recognised in America where the rules of the Senate mean that Wyoming—a minority part of the country—with half a million people has two Members of the Senate, as does California with 38 million people. It is also recognised in Australia where Tasmania with 700,000 people and New South Wales with 7 million people have 12 members each in the Senate. It is recognised in the constitutions of Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico.

When we start from a profound imbalance in the numbers of people in a population and from a huge inequality of size, fairness of treatment is not secured by a crude blanket uniformity that requires exactly the same provision for the minorities as the majority. We need to accord some respect to minorities, because the majority can invariably, and always if they want, outvote at any opportunity. The answer is not to say, “no representation without taxation.” The answer is certainly not to say no to Scots paying income tax at a UK level and then no to Scottish representation in this House. The answer must be to say yes to Scottish representation on equal terms here and not to devolve all forms of income tax to the Scottish Parliament. Scots should continue to pay income tax to the UK and to be represented in the UK. We will achieve the same level of accountability and local responsibility for decisions by devolving some but not all of income tax—perhaps 75% of it—and then assigning half of VAT, with the Scottish Parliament then raising the majority of its spending by its taxing decisions.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Mr Brown]

I am going to answer the point that I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is about to raise.

I do not underestimate, and I have reason not to underestimate, the concerns of the English people. I also understand the sensitivities that have been mentioned. There are ways in which they can be dealt with in the Union, without disrupting the status of Members of Parliament in this House and by, at the same time, meeting the sensitivities of the English. The McKay committee offers one way forward, but I agree with the Government that there should be a rigorous examination of what it is proposing as a new element has been introduced, which is the decision on income tax. There are other ways that we can meet the needs of English Members of Parliament in this House without creating two classes of representation, because if we do that, the Union is all but over.

The Leader of the House has put forward a crude argument that needs to be answered. I say to him again that English votes for English laws will not solve the problem that he has raised. It will not bring stability and harmony to the United Kingdom or create the sense of fairness that he wants to see. That will be true even for the English representatives whom he wishes to support. As the McKay committee found, it is difficult to isolate a part of the constitution and say that it is exclusively, uniquely and for ever English. There can be few laws passed in this place that do not have implications for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It will also not deal with the fundamental problem of fairness. Let us say that the UK Parliament votes a tax rise to pay for improved pensions and a better national health service or even to cover the national debt, does this House think that English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters will accept for long—even if the Scots have no voting rights—that they, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, will contribute their income rises to UK-wide services, including funding the Barnett formula, if Scotland is exempt while continuing to benefit from the money raised? That is the Conservative policy. If the Leader of the House will not speak, let someone from the Back Benches defend the Conservative party policy, which will split the United Kingdom apart. Who will speak up?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My constituents in Letchworth want to know why it is that the right hon. Gentleman should be able to vote in this place about education in Letchworth when I have absolutely no say on those matters in Kirkcaldy in his constituency. It is not right—[Interruption.] I have not finished my intervention. When he was Prime Minister, he consistently ignored this issue. He ignored the voice of England and it must be addressed. It is time he came forward with a positive proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In answer to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), I simply say that although he stressed fairness, he did not talk about proportionality. It is very important in this context to remember that the 1.6 million voters in Scotland who voted yes—we have heard a lot about them today—represent, on a turnout of 84%, only 2.5% of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that SNP Members will bear that in mind.

Furthermore, in regard to the total population of the United Kingdom of 64 million, England represents 84%, Wales 4.8%, Northern Ireland 2.8% and Scotland 8.2%. In fairness to the United Kingdom as a whole, there has to be a point at which we respond to the degree of proportionality and the extent of unfairness for the English constituent parts of the United Kingdom made manifest by those figures alone.

When the question of total tax revenues is taken into account, the proportions are England 85%, Wales 3.5%, Northern Ireland 2.6% and Scotland 9%. On redistribution, and taking into account the Barnett formula as well, we have ended up with something wholly disproportionate that must be remedied within the framework of the United Kingdom as a whole. That equally applies, of course, not only to the distribution of money and functions, but to the manner in which they are redistributed through services provided to constituents throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

In order to deal with the West Lothian question, I considered this matter back in 1997 when—on 3 June, I recollect—I proposed an amendment and had a debate with Tam Dalyell and Margaret Ewing. That debate was civilised and our debate can continue to be civilised, although we should bear it in mind that a much greater degree of devolution is now being considered than was then the case.

The need to resolve the question has now become imminent and absolutely essential. I therefore profoundly believe that the question should be dealt with by changing our Standing Orders within the framework of the United Kingdom itself. After all, it was the United Kingdom that decided, with the consent of the voters of each of its constituent parts—including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—to devolve some functions. That was done as a matter of democratic consent and with everybody’s agreement. Hopefully, as we move forward, the other parts would be accorded the same consent. It absolutely follows, however, that this has to be done within the United Kingdom as a whole, and the best and most appropriate context for that to happen is, I believe, within the framework of a change to Standing Order No. 39.

Let me briefly read out what the Standing Order would say:

“Where a Bill…or part of a Bill, or a Motion, is expressly stated to apply only to England, and the Speaker or, in Committee, the Chair, before the commencement of business, rules that this Standing Order applies, he shall declare which category of Member may vote in any division and that a Member representing a constituency in a part of the United Kingdom to which legislative power has been devolved, may speak”—

so the Member would be involved—

“but not vote in proceedings relating to that devolved matter.”

The devolved matter would obviously be one

“in respect of which legislation has been enacted devolving the exercise of functions to a Parliament or an Assembly within the United Kingdom.”

I have sent a copy to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister. I hope it will be given fair wind. However, there has been another proposal—the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) signified yesterday that the matter should be dealt with by primary legislation. I was deeply concerned to note the response of the Secretary of State at this point, and I hope he will look again at the reply he gave. The idea that the capacity of Members of Parliament should be dealt with by legislation prescribed in statute would be a recipe for endless litigation. We need only look at what happened in the Jackson case or at the issue of the Parliament Act to realise that this would be a disastrous route.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend accept that when we recently looked in detail at the issue of privilege, although it had been thought at the outset that this was an area on which to legislate, in fact the Committees of both Houses that looked at it came to the conclusion that that would be a grave mistake, for the very reason he suggests—that it would all become justiciable?

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I and others were on the Committee, and those were indeed the conclusions we came to.

As for the charter of fundamental rights—now reckoned to be within the framework of our own constitutional arrangements, although I do not have time to go into it now—the bottom line is that that would mean these matters being adjudicated by the European Court of Justice, which really would be a very dangerous situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said that the Conservatives, good Unionists that we are, had not supported the Better Together campaign. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you and I attended the first meeting of Better Together in London, strongly supporting—[Interruption.] No, we did attend that meeting. Conservatives took part in the campaign. I think that Ruth Davidson has been widely praised in that regard. Certainly in my constituency we were rooting for the Scots to stay in the Union, and it is insulting to say otherwise.

Even in Hertfordshire, in the middle of England—it is perhaps worth considering this if one is from a different part of the UK—my constituents were writing to me to say how important it was to them that the UK should stay together. One wrote that having come from a forces background, he had served with people from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and it was very important to him that we should stay together. Many others wrote with their memories of working and fighting together for the United Kingdom. There was real enthusiasm and pleasure in Hertfordshire that the Scots chose to stay.

[Paul Murphy]

Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I was in no way suggesting that the Conservative party, as a party, was in favour of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom—far from it. He is quite right: the Conservative party in Scotland did a very good job. I was hinting—perhaps more than hinting—that a number of his party’s Back Benchers were not as in favour of the outcome as he is.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I would not accept that.

The political parties have now promised even more powers to Scotland on a tight timetable. It is very encouraging that the document that was promised by the end of the month has come out three weeks early and that we seem to be making the sort of progress that we all would have hoped for with the so-called vow.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

No, not at the moment.

Devolution for England is not an arcane topic—it is a demand of the people. The same constituents who wrote to me very strongly in favour of the Union and Better Together are also writing to me saying, for example:

“We are very encouraged by David Cameron’s determination to put right the inequalities of the…UK.”

Another constituent says:

“English votes on English affairs has the advantage that it is the simplest and cheapest solution”.

Another says:

“The unfair treatment of England must be rectified.”

Yet another says:

“I am not a…Conservative voter, so this is not a Party political view, but it is about time the English were given some self respect…The Labour Party will not like this but the present situation regarding Scottish MPs voting for English issues cannot continue. What’s sauce for the goose has got to be sauce for the gander.”

[Mr Betts]

I have listened very carefully to the words that the hon. and learned Gentleman has used. He talked about “devolution” in England. Frankly, for my constituents in Sheffield it is not devolution if all that changes down here is that English MPs in this Chamber vote on English matters instead of UK Members voting on English matters. That is not devolution as far as Sheffield is concerned.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I bet that the people of Sheffield want English votes for English laws, and now is the time for that.

One way of resolving this would be completely symmetrical devolution for England and Scotland, with an English Parliament and an English Executive, perhaps located in Birmingham. Some people argue for that, but my view is that it would be costly and that it is unnecessary, given that we have a perfectly good Parliament here.

Since the second world war, Standing Order No. 97 has allowed procedure for Scottish MPs in this place to pass laws for Scotland. It would be easy to adapt that for England. I spent time as a Conservative constitutional affairs spokesman and helped develop a form of English votes for English laws based on that approach. The various commissions that have looked at the issue—from the Conservative democracy taskforce to the recent McKay commission—are all on the same page. It is all about English votes for English laws.

The British public will listen to the arguments deployed by the right hon. Member for Torfaen and some of his colleagues who say, “Oh, it’s all impossibly difficult, technical stuff,” but the fact is that the public are not very interested in academic constitutional arguments; they want a practical solution. English votes for English laws, and English and Welsh votes for English and Welsh laws, is not complicated. It is a simple solution to a simple problem.

As I put it to the former Prime Minister, there is no reason why a Scots MP from Kirkcaldy should vote on education in Letchworth when I do not get a vote on what happens in his constituency. At the moment there are two categories of Members of Parliament: there are those such as the former Prime Minister, who is not allowed to vote on domestic matters in his own constituency, and there are those like as me who are able to vote on such domestic matters. In fact, he is in a category all on his own, because there are things he can vote on in my constituency that he cannot vote on in his own. [Interruption.] He is not here, but if he was he would be able to do that.

We all understand that the Labour party has a lot of Members of Parliament in Scotland and it is obviously concerned about its ability to win a majority in an election. However, English votes for English laws is a demand of the people. If it is not done in the context of this Parliament with our Standing Orders, we will end up with a demand for an English Parliament and an English Executive, which would undercut and sideline this Parliament and be bad for the United Kingdom. Labour should think on that.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am conscious that I am the fourth former Leader of the House to speak, with possibly one more still to come. I fundamentally disagree with what the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said about the role of the Clerk of the House.

It is worth reminding the House of what happened when the other place decided to modernise an historic office of Parliament—namely the office of Lord Chancellor —and split it into its component parts. There were all sorts of good intentions, but it turned out to be not nearly as straightforward as the authors of the plan assumed and resulted in a considerable backlash. That should be a warning to us to proceed with care, as the motion proposes.

On the central issue of whether it is realistic to expect the diverse qualities needed for a Clerk of the House on the one hand and a chief executive on the other to be found in one person, my view is that in the case of Sir Robert Rogers the answer was yes. I said as much in the tributes to him a few weeks ago, as did many others. One of the key questions for the Select Committee is whether it continues to be realistic to expect to find one person to hold those qualities or whether they need to be separated. The other reason that the Select Committee needs to re-examine the issue is this: not only should it look at separation, but it should look at something short of separation—a sort of devo-max; in other words, as hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), keeping a Clerk, but having underneath him a chief operating officer to whom certain functions are delegated.

The House has to be crystal clear on the issue of accountability. As Sir Robert Rogers made clear in his letter, many of the decisions that he took as Clerk impacted on the decisions he took as chief executive and vice versa. If we had a chief operating officer answerable to the Clerk, that would provide a focus for services of the House and avoid all the problems of having co-equals, and it would not need legislation. Without primary legislation, the Clerk would still be the corporate officer, with statutory responsibilities that could not be separated from the responsibilities of a chief executive.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in Sir Kevin Tebbit’s report into the management of this place, one of his recommendations—recommendation 19—was that there should be such a role, namely an operating officer with commercial experience who was the deputy to the Clerk?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for refreshing the House’s memory of that particular Tebbit recommendation. If we had two co-equals, they could play Members off against each other; indeed, Members could play them off against each other too. That has to be taken on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I support what has been said about the need for us to show support for the Chair and to be respectful of it. I must, however, pick a bone with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who said that he had had no support for his modernisation measures. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box as shadow Leader of the House and being shoulder to shoulder with him on that issue. I got a right pasting for it. So he did get my support, but it was not always easy.

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful for it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you.

It has been mentioned that the Clerk of the House has an important role as our adviser on the constitution, procedure and business. The role is important not only to us but to those in many other countries who consult our Clerk because he or she is the leading expert on those constitutional matters. As the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, we now face big issues relating to the operation of the devolution settlement, human rights and other matters, and we need authoritative advice to be given in a definitive way by someone with the standing of the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House is paid at the rate of a Lord Justice of Appeal—not a High Court judge—because he is in a comparable position of authority, or so it has always been thought.

I want to give the House two examples of the kind of advice that I have seen our Clerk give. For my sins, I sat on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. We had experts, academics and all the top lawyers appearing before the Committee; everybody came to give evidence over a long period. When we read the report, however, we can see that the most authoritative witness was Sir Robert Rogers, the Clerk of the House. People disagreed about that issue, but no one disagreed that it was fantastic to see him giving evidence to us; he could point to the 1671 or the 1678 resolution of the House, for example, and express the matter in question in a simple, straightforward way.

Similarly, when I was serving on the Standards and Privileges Committee, we had to deal with the difficult issues arising from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on phone hacking. We had to decide whether there had been contempt of the House, and whether issues of privilege arose from that. It was the Clerk of the House who gave the most convincing and authoritative advice. Someone needs to be able to give such advice. A position of authority is required, and I would not want to see that position diminished.

I do not disagree with the point that we also need modern, efficient business practice here in the House. Sir Kevin Tebbit looked at that matter in 2007 and decided that a chief operating officer—a deputy Clerk with commercial experience from outside this place—was the answer. We need to look at all these questions. Can we split the role? Is there a case for a deputy with commercial experience? For once, I think it should be the House itself that does this. We should not bring in outside experts. We have had the Ibbs, Braithwaite and Tebbit reports; now let us do this ourselves. I support the motion.

Deregulation Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not really think the Solicitor-General should be replying to a debate on broadcasting, but I am happy to give way.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we did have a debate in Committee, in which the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was a very active member, and he was satisfied with the Government’s approach.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course—it stands to reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present; otherwise, he would not have been able to speak to the amendments. That is a rather redundant, kind of tautologous point—[Interruption.] No, the debate is not finished and I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is adopting that approach. The honest truth is that the Government have approached this whole issue in completely the wrong order. The amendments tabled this evening are the only way we can correct that order because we are putting the cart before the horse.

Surely we should decide what the point of the BBC is and how it should be financed, and then decide on sanctions should those things not be met—not the other way round. Under the Bill, however, before any review of the licence fee and the next charter, it has been decided in principle that there should be a change to the arrangement on sanctions for not paying the licence fee. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government have caved in to some frankly preposterous Back-Bench campaigning, and it is a shame that those campaigners are not present to see the end of this debate and listen to the next stage. The discussion is far from over.

If the Education Secretary were here and looking for a list of British values, I would tell him that I would put the BBC and British broadcasting at the top of that list. I have spoken to politicians from India who said that the style of broadcasting that we invented in this country and exported around the world inspired them to have free and independent broadcasting in their country. I have known politicians from Chile, Argentina and Spain who talked of sitting under the kitchen table and hiding while listening to British broadcasting on the radio—largely through the World Service as it was in the past—because they believed that was the only way they could get an independent source of news.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In a moment.

Many of my constituents are on low incomes and in a deprived community, but they are happy to pay the licence fee because it guarantees something for everybody. For them, the sport on television, which would probably be commercially available elsewhere, is public service broadcasting; “EastEnders” is public service broadcasting. The quality that is brought by ordinary broadcasting to everyday lives is part of what people in my constituency believe to be public service broadcasting.

[David Rutley]

rose—

[The Solicitor-General]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) because I said I would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It is not, actually. What we are discussing is the order in which the Government should proceed—in other words, whether they should first decide what the future sanction should be and then review the licence fee, or whether they should first review the licence fee and the charter and then decide what the sanction should be. I believe the latter is the only logical and commonsensical way of proceeding. That is why I am strongly supportive of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has tabled, because that is precisely what they do. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to oppose our amendments this evening. I know that the Solicitor-General is sometimes a very reasonable man—[Interruption]—although he has not got his reasonable face on now, I see.

[The Solicitor-General]

It is because you would not give way to me.

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[The Solicitor-General]

The debate we have been having, in Committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), is about enforcement of the licence fee, not about the principle.

[Chris Bryant]

I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.

That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

We have had a short but lively debate, and I would like to put it on record that no Government Member said that the BBC was not a fantastic institution, or anything of that sort. Our debate was not about the licence fee, although the charter review is coming up, and that will have a process of its own; it was about enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—I pay tribute to the way he put his case—made the point that there are many poor and vulnerable people who struggle with the licence fee, and they can be criminalised and even sent to prison for failure to pay it. He clearly felt concerned about them, and made his case in that way. It was not developed as some kind of veiled attack on the BBC. I think it right to look at decriminalisation. Even the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seemed to accept that at one point, and he even seemed to accept that it would be right to have a review of the sort proposed by the Government. Again, I do not see much cross-party disagreement there.

Clearly, the Government will not take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and say what the outcome of the review and the penalties will be—something I thought she said. She asks why the Government are unwilling to set the penalties now; the answer is that we have not yet had the review. Whether one particular body will have the duty of setting the variable fees is another issue for the review; we want a proper review that will look into all aspects of the issue. As to what analysis has been done of the potential impacts—positive and negative—of switching to a civil rather than a criminal enforcement, or of having the option of both, we are having a review precisely to determine that. The whole point is that we do not want to prejudge the review.

[Helen Goodman]

My question was not why the Government will not decide the penalties at this juncture—I completely accept what the Solicitor-General said about that—but why the Government were offloading the task of setting the penalties on to another body.

[The Solicitor-General]

There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.

The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,

“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”

of the TV licensing enforcement regime

“before each House of Parliament.”

Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.

Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.

At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.

[Chris Bryant]

I got a bit confused with all the different reviews we seem to be talking about. We are talking about a review of the charter, which is coming along; and a review of the system of sanctions, which may lead to recommendations on what needs to change and on the use of the secondary legislation included in the Bill. All I am saying is that the latter should not come before the former.

[The Solicitor-General]

I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that we are where we are. That may not be novel, but it is true. [Interruption.] It does. The Bill had within its scope the enforcement arrangements for the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire—not me—was concerned about the issue, which garnered considerable support in the House. He was persuasive in saying that it was right to review this area and take the powers at this convenient opportunity, in case the review comes to the same conclusion as him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is very experienced in these matters and has had a role in the leadership of House operations, so he understands these things. This is not such a novel and surprising thing. It is actually a good opportunity to tackle an issue that has arisen in Parliament.

[Chris Bryant]

What I think I understand by that—I hope the Solicitor-General will confirm whether I am right, or will correct me if I have it wrong—is that his Government would or could bring in and use the secondary legislation before the charter review happened. Is that his intention?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Helen Goodman]

I did not find the Solicitor-General’s arguments very convincing. He seems to want to retain the freedom to fiddle around with the way in which the licence fee operates before we have seen the results of the royal charter review. None the less, I do not wish to press either amendment 62 or amendment 63 to a vote, although I suspect that amendment 62 may be re-examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55

TV licensing: alternatives to criminal sanctions

Amendments made: 14, page 40, line 24, after “be” insert “—

(a) ”

This amendment is a drafting amendment related to amendment 15.

Amendment 15, page 40, line 25, at end insert

“, or

(b) such amount, not exceeding a maximum amount specified in the regulations, as may be determined by a body so specified.”—(The Solicitor-General)

In the event of the Secretary of State deciding to make regulations replacing the TV licensing offences with a civil penalty regime, this amendment would allow the regulations to provide for the amount of the penalty to be determined by a body specified in the regulations, subject to a maximum amount specified in the regulations.

New Clause 3

Limit on indemnity required under Outer Space Act 1986

‘(1) The Outer Space Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3 (prohibition of unlicensed activities), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) An order under subsection (3) may—

(a) provide that section 10(1) does not apply to a person to the extent that the person is carrying on activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order;

(b) specify the maximum amount of a person’s liability under section 10(1) so far as the liability relates to the carrying on of activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order.”

(3) In section 5 (terms of licence), after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A licence must specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom under section 10 in respect of activities authorised by the licence.”

(4) In section 10 (obligation to indemnify government against claims), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—

(a) any limit on the amount of a person’s liability that is specified in a licence, and

(b) any order made under section 3(3).”

(5) The Secretary of State may vary any licence under section 4 of the 1986 Act that is held at the time when this section comes into force so as to specify the maximum amount of the licencee’s liability under section 10 of that Act.

(6) A variation under subsection (5) is to be made by giving notice in writing to the licensee.

(7) The power under section 15(6) of the 1986 Act may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory any provision made by this section (subject to any specified exceptions or modifications).” —(Oliver Heald.)

Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK government against claims arising out of the activities. The new clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability under the indemnity.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Solicitor-General]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.

Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.

Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.

Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.

Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.

New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—

‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—

(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;

(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.

(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”

This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.

New clause 10—Repeal of the Sunday Trading Act 1994—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday trading at large shops) is repealed.

(3) Section 2, subsection (5) of that Act and Schedule 3 to the Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) are repealed.”

New clause 11—Extending of Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “six” and insert “eight”.

(3) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “6 p.m.” and insert “8 p.m.”.”

New clause 12—Suspension of restriction of Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—

(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).

(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—

(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(8) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”

New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—

(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and

(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.

(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—

(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and

(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.

(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(9) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”

New clause 14—Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), after paragraph (k) at end insert—

“(l) any garden centres.”

Government new schedule 2—Poisons and explosives precursors.

Amendment 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.

Government amendment 12.

Amendment 85, page 24, line 11, leave out clauses 30 and 31.

Amendment 79, in clause 30, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert

“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”

Government amendments 80 to 83.

Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 24, line 42, at end insert—

‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendments 16 to 18.

Amendment 64, page 50, line 30, leave out clauses 73 to 76.

This amendment removes the requirement on persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.

Amendment 66, in clause 73, page 50, line 33, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 67,  page 50, line 35, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 69,  page 50, line 37, leave out “only”.

This amendment makes it clear that a person exercising a regulatory function under this section must take regulatory action when needed.

Amendment 68, in clause 75, page 51, line 29, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 70, in clause 76, page 52, line 4, after “75”, insert

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”

This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.

Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert

“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.

Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.

[The Solicitor-General]

This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.

In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.

Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.

In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.

New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

For the purpose of clarification, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me also make it clear to the Minister that not only am I satisfied with the Government’s new clause, but it is, quite predictably, far better than the one that I originally tabled, and for that I am extremely grateful.

[The Solicitor-General]

I thank my hon. Friend for displaying his customary modesty.

[Philip Davies]

I have much to be modest about.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not agree. I think that my hon. Friend makes a huge contribution in the House, although I do not always agree with him.

It was made clear in the briefing the Government published in 2007 that there was no intention of affecting prior deposits. It was also never the intention that landlords who had protected deposits and who had given their tenants information about that protection should then have to reissue the same information about the deposit protection each and every time the tenancy was renewed, although the same deposit would continue to be protected in the same scheme from one tenancy to the next. That, however, was the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v. Marino Rodrigues. As a result of that decision, a large number of landlords were at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, despite having done what the sector and successive Governments considered to be the right thing. Our proposals are broadly similar to those made by my hon. Friend, and will protect landlords who follow Government and tenancy deposit scheme advice from financial penalties and delayed possession proceedings by providing a grace period and making other provision.

New clause 21 deals with short-term lets. It is aimed at an outdated, 40-year old law that restricts householders in London from being able temporarily to let out their homes, or even a spare room, for less than three months without having first secured planning permission for change of use. Currently, failure to secure planning permission in Greater London for short-term letting can result in a fine of up to £20,000. That is not the case in the rest of England, where property owners can let out their homes on a short-term basis without needing permission to do so.

During the 2012 Olympics while we were all encouraging visitors to come to London and join in the celebrations, some people who welcomed visitors into their homes were subject to enforcement action from London boroughs. That was not universal, but I do applaud the boroughs that entered into the spirit and encouraged residents to let out their homes or a spare room. Wimbledon is on at the moment, of course, and Londoners have traditionally rented out spare rooms and homes to people visiting the capital for the championships. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give London residents more of the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the country.

I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He made the point that sensitive handling is needed to ensure that regulations covering companies that sub-let regularly are not circumvented by these changes. The regulations have to be properly dealt with in a sensitive way.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with what the Minister says about the sensitivity of this matter and the importance of getting it right. The London property market’s problem at the moment is certainly not that it is too long term. With that in mind, does the Minister think there has been sufficient consultation and enough opportunity to consider the full implications, given that the proposal has been brought forward long after all the pre-legislative scrutiny has been finished?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

Clearly the regulations need to be carefully considered and proper consultation is needed to ensure that the effect of the measure, which is to give more freedom to individual householders, is respected while giving proper recognition in the policy to the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington also brought to my attention.

[Mark Field]

I endorse the view stated earlier that a process of consultation began as recently as February on this issue and has not yet come to a close, so it feels a little strange that this measure has been rushed through in this Bill. That is the tenor of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as well. Why does the Minister think there is a different regime for London? Why was that put into place some 40 years ago and why is the time suddenly now right for it to be changed?

[The Solicitor-General]

As I think was said in another part of the country today, London is a super-city: it is an enormous city and it does have unique circumstances. The Government recognise the necessity of working with the London boroughs to design the provision to ensure we achieve the right balance between increasing the freedoms for Londoners and protecting London’s housing supply. We would not want that to be undermined. We are trying to ensure that speculators are not able to buy homes meant for Londoners and rent them permanently as short-term lets.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that central London authorities such as Westminster, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) will know, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington, backed almost unanimously by the amenity and neighbourhood associations in those boroughs, have all expressed extremely strong reservations about these proposals, precisely because of the fear that they will lead to a loss of residential stock in what are already highly stressed neighbourhoods?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, the Government are aware of that, and we have tried to respond, first of all by making the point, as the Department has done, that the London boroughs must be fully involved in the process and also by allowing the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have an opportunity to consider the detail of the changes and whether they are appropriate.

Turning to Government new clauses 22 and 23, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission are independent bodies established by Parliament and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Currently, both bodies have to provide a five-year corporate plan. The Committee has reviewed governance and suggested a five-year corporate plan should be produced in the first financial year of a Parliament, and the duty to update it and produce a new plan on an annual basis should be removed, although the Committee would retain the right to request updated plans outside this cycle. Value for money studies would take place at the beginning of the five-year period, not annually, and provision would be made to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to appoint independent members to its audit committee and other committees. These changes are supported by the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission.

I shall now turn—briefly—to the subject of poisons and explosives precursors. New clause 24 introduces the new schedule inserted by new schedule 2, which abolishes the statutory requirement for a poisons board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing system for poisons and explosive precursors to streamline the regimes and bring them into line with the latest EU regulations.

I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will wish to comment on new clause 8 and the preserved right to buy and the idea that within one year of Royal Assent a plan should be laid to replace homes that have been sold under right to buy and review the effectiveness of it. Since the revitalisation of right to buy, 19,500 households have achieved their home ownership aspirations, but this is not just about buying; it is also about building. More than £419 million from the right-to-buy sales has been ring-fenced to fund new homes, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review.

The impact assessment sets out a wider perspective on right to buy and how the policy will work. The Department for Communities and Local Government publishes quarterly statistics on right-to-buy sales in England and annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy, and live data tables are on the Department’s website. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, on future stock transfers, the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently published a stock transfer manual. So the Government have set out their position very clearly and the intention is that for transfers completing after 30 September 2014, net proceeds from preserved right-to-buy sales are, within three years, to be used to fund new affordable housing at no greater subsidy cost than under the main affordable homes programme.

[Caroline Lucas]

Not enough of that money is properly ring-fenced, and it has been estimated that only about one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced by more affordable housing. Is the Minister as shocked as I am to discover that in one London borough a third of the council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties that they now rent back at very high rents?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course we can always ask for more, but the point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that one in seven figure is misleading, because the money we are talking about is from extra sales, over and above the profile, and as far as that is concerned, this very considerable sum has been set aside. We are confident that over the next three years we will get the sorts of results I described.

On new clauses 10 to 14 on Sunday trading, I am afraid this time I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although I will not go on at great length as I am hoping he might have a chance to speak about this. The interests of smaller retailers, the working hours of employees, the effect of extra lorry traffic and the need to have some family day consideration lead the Government to the view that the current balance does not need changing, although it was for the Olympics, and very successfully so.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Solicitor-General agree that with 77% of the public supporting the current regime, it would be madness to change the plans in place now?

[The Solicitor-General]

I would never describe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s plans as mad, but on this occasion I do not agree with them.

Turning to Government amendment 12 and the amendments to remove clause 17, we had a lively debate about insolvency practitioners in Committee. Of course, the profession deserves a great deal of credit for the good work it does in rescuing struggling businesses that still have a viable future, saving jobs and preserving value in the economy. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in Committee, the World Bank rates our Insolvency Service the seventh best in the world, and it is a service that other countries admire. This has been achieved through innovative policy developments, and we believe that the one we are discussing now—the system of partial authorisation introduced by clause 17 —is a positive development for the sector, for the profession, for creditors and for insolvent companies and individuals.

The proposed system will reduce barriers to entry by enabling would-be insolvency practitioners to qualify in respect of only corporate or personal insolvency; if they want to, they can continue to do both, but those who wish to specialise will benefit from shorter training periods and lower training costs. That will increase competition and bring down fees, and the profession will benefit too. If a firm decides to fund someone through qualification, it will cost them less than it does now. The amount of money involved is substantial: BPP, the leading provider of professional training, charges £3,470 for each of the three courses needed for the professional examinations, and there are many fees on top of that, so we are talking about significant sums—not hundreds of pounds but thousands. The Government have heard arguments against partial authorisation, but have decided to continue with the policy.

Amendment 85, which would remove clause 30, is misguided. It is intended primarily to halt the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and is based on a misunderstanding of what we are doing. It would bring to an end all the excellent work we have undertaken with industry and many interested bodies in the sustainability, access and environmental sectors to rationalise the plethora of local standards by regularising them through the building control system. It would also leave in place the considerable range of excessive and ill-considered costs imposed on the housing industry by some local authorities. These standards are holding back development and are a mess.

On journalistic materials, I did promise earlier that we would introduce extensions to the power of the criminal procedure rules to cover the procedure for making certain sorts of applications, ensuring that journalists do not lose any of the statutory protections they currently have.

I need not address the remaining minor and technical amendments at this stage. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s time, but this is a big group of amendments.

[Toby Perkins]

I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.

The fact that the Solicitor-General had to whistle through so many new clauses and amendments says a tremendous amount about the Bill and the way the Government have approached it. We have 49 minutes to debate 43 different new clauses, amendments and new schedules. It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy that this House is being asked to whistle through the approval of very important measures that this Government have brought before us at a moment’s notice.

The Bill was originally an unambitious, predominantly inconsequential list of minor changes to the way we sell yarn and chocolate liqueurs that most people would not much mind or particularly appreciate, mixed in with a few substantially more dangerous provisions. However, it has morphed almost daily into a leviathan of a Bill with a multitude of ill-thought-out, scarcely consulted on clauses, the aims of which are unclear, the consequences of which are uncertain, the benefits of which are unproven, and the coherence of which is absolutely impossible to fathom. If this is the final piece of legislation this Government introduce, it will be a fitting climax for them: unloved, owned by no one, with few advocates, whose central purpose has long since been obscured, and who exist now only to be seen to be doing something, in the hope that, if they hang around for a bit, the polls might take a turn for the better.

The ultimate summary of the Government’s approach was heard when the Solicitor-General said in response to the very reasonable criticisms of his previous Bill that we are where we are. In fact, the Deregulation Bill could be the “we are where we are” Bill. Virtually no one is speaking up for it or offering much in the way of support for it.

We oppose clause 17 because we believe it will dumb down the profession. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, we have one of the best insolvency professions in the world. The Bill will de-professionalise what is a very successful profession. It will give an advantage to large insolvency firms, working against the smaller firms and new entrants to the market that Members on both sides of this House profess to support. In Committee, we warned that this change would represent a regulatory move, rather than a deregulatory one. Throughout their response, the Government were unable to come up with any serious support for the Bill.

The Solicitor-General said that the purpose of the Bill—its benefit—was to save money. When he was asked about that in Committee, he said that it costs £4,000 for each of these exams, and if someone only has to do two of them, they will save £4,000. He was also very critical of the insolvency profession, and then suggested that that saving will be passed on to the customers of insolvency practitioners. Many practitioners have been in the industry for some 20 years. The idea that, 20 years later, they are going to give some sort of discount because back then they saved themselves £4,000 bears no scrutiny.

In Committee, the Solicitor-General described responses to the consultation on this change as “mixed”. That was an extraordinarily generous euphemism. Excluding the Secretary of State, just one out of seven recognised professional bodies in the field supports partial licences, and 75% of small firms undertake both corporate and personal insolvency procedures for commercial reasons, so it is the large players that are likely to be able to adopt partial licences. If any of the benefits that the Solicitor-General has laid out actually come to pass—I strongly suspect they will not—they will exclude small players from the insolvency market and make it very much the preserve of large companies. He is setting out to dumb down the profession rated by the World Bank as the seventh best in the world, judged on the basis of the amount returned to creditors and the speed of the process—two key aspects we would expect an insolvency regime to have. When I asked a turnaround specialist from Germany who was working in Chesterfield why he was working in the UK rather than back in his homeland, he told me, “Because your insolvency regime is so much better than ours.” He gave a list of reasons why we should be proud of what we have. Amazingly, this Government are coming to this House to make changes that would de-professionalise something that is tremendously successful and which do not enjoy the support of the industry. The major trade body representing insolvency practitioners calls for clause 17 to be not amended but scrapped, yet the Solicitor-General says he is doing this on behalf of the industry. This is a bizarre set of circumstances.

The Solicitor-General will be creating a three-tier system where, rather than there being one set of exams, people will operate in three different ways. The implications for Scotland, whose insolvency regime is very different, have not been laid out. Our amendment would delete the clause. Even if one accepts the Government’s arguments on personal insolvency specialists not needing corporate insolvency, saying in reverse that people who do corporate insolvency, which will often involve aspects of personal insolvency, do not need to have studied personal insolvency is bizarre. We think the Government are very misguided, as does the industry, and we strongly call on them to do the right thing, support our amendment and drop this clause.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) want to discuss their proposals, and despite the lack of scrutiny that these clauses will get, I will ensure that they get an opportunity to do so. However, I shall quickly speak on those measures from the Front Bench.

On Sunday trading, I support entirely what the Minister said, and I will not be supporting new clauses 10 to 14 for the following reasons: the Government promised that their emergency legislation for the Olympics was not a Trojan horse leading to further liberalisation of Sunday trading hours; the importance of Sunday trading legislation for employees; the broad, cross-party coalition supporting our current legislation in this area; the impact these proposed changes would have on small businesses and the convenience sector, which is very much under pressure; and the fact that these measures are being proposed in the way that they are, without any consultation on an issue that divides opinion tremendously. All those things mean that this Bill is entirely the wrong place for such measures to be introduced.

On new clauses 20 and 21, the Labour party is, as we said previously, absolutely committed to greater security for tenants and a long-term approach to the private rented market. It is revealing that at a time when the Labour party is proposing policies that will give tenants more security and certainty in their tenure, the Government are introducing something that specifically encourages more shorter-term lets. Just because their priorities are wrong, it does not mean that, individually, there is no merit in these new clauses, but they need to be considered carefully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has made a strong case, and London Members from across the House are deeply concerned that the London letting market does not suffer from the problem of being too long term. I am very concerned that there should be proper consultation on these new clauses.

We think that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is important. We are very conscious that the Green party leader of Brighton council recently slammed the entire principle of right to buy, describing it as the

“biggest privatisation programme this country has ever seen.”

Right to buy is important. We need to help people who otherwise would not be able to access the housing market, as with so many in Cameron’s Britain; in 1997, it took the average family three years to save for a deposit on a home but now it takes about 22 years. Given that catastrophic record of this Government, in particular, it is important that right to buy is available, but it is also important that these properties are replaced.

As I have said, this group contains a huge number of measures. We will seek to divide the House on amendments 84 and 2. It is entirely wrong that Members have had so little time to discuss this group, but in order to give people the opportunity to discuss their proposals, I will leave my comments there.

Code of Conduct

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

I will come back to that, if I may, but I want to carry on citing what the commissioner said in the memorandum, which the Committee accepted. He continued:

“But the conduct would need to be so serious and so blatant as to make it imperative that the House be given the opportunity to consider the damage done to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”

The code does not seek to judge the behaviour as right or wrong—only the effect it has on the reputation and standing of the House. In my view, that is a hugely important thing to defend in our democracy, particularly after the events of the last four years.

Let me deal with other issues that we need to look at. The Government are currently consulting on proposals to allow the House to decide whether or not to permit the opening of a recall petition in cases where the House considers a Member’s conduct warrants it. Does that mean purely in respect of their public life, or does it mean in their private or personal life as well? I think that we stray into these issues with the amendment, which is why I think the House would be better to stand back from it and have a look at things in the round at a later stage. Without a provision such as the one I am proposing, the House risks being either ineffectual, because the code does not allow it to deal with behaviour that everyone agrees is reprehensible, or arbitrary because it takes action even though such behaviour is not covered by the code. That seems to be the intention. The alternative is that we end up relying on legal semantics to decide whether something is still “purely personal and private”, which is absolutely not how the code should operate.

As our report says, this is a provision for extreme circumstances. It does not invite the Committee or the House to judge a Member’s purely private and personal relationships and will not be used to do so. This is not to turn the House into a moral arbiter, but to allow it to protect the integrity of Parliament. It is a judgment on the effect of a Member’s conduct on that vital objective, not a judgment on the Member’s morals.

I cannot support the amendment, but I can suggest an alternative, more appropriate, way forward. The commissioner consults the Committee on certain matters. For example, if someone is referred to the police because the commissioner is concerned about a police investigation that might have implications for the criminal law, the commissioner comes to the Committee and provides evidence to show why the referral should take place. We are then asked either to agree it or reject it. Paragraph 104 of the guide to the rules also makes it clear that the Committee expects to be consulted before accepting an investigation of a complaint against a former Member, a complaint that goes back more than seven years, or one where a member has asked the commissioner to investigate allegations without being the subject of a specific complaint. With a self-referral, the commissioner has to come before the Committee and ask our permission for this to take place. The commissioner is currently consulting on revisions to the guide to the rules.

Let me say to the House and to those who tabled the amendment that I would be happy to ask the Committee to consider adding consideration of complaints relating to a Member’s private and personal life to the category of matters for which the commissioner should not accept investigation without first consulting the Committee.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would want to point out that the commissioner has tried in the new version to separate what are aspirations for us all to behave well from things that we really should not do. If my hon. Friend were to look at page 42 of the review of the code, he would see that paragraph 15 is now different because of the separation in part 2 of certain aspirational requirements of the code from those things that we really must not do, which appear in the later parts of the code. It is largely a stylistic matter. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman might want to make that point.

[Mr Barron]

Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech. He is a hard-working member of the Committee, as well as a member of other Committees that look into standards in public life. He is well worth listening to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

May I return to the theme I was developing earlier, in what was described as a very long intervention? I shall try to be briefer this time. The commissioner suggests that some of the new rules might be split. We used to have rule 2, stating that the rules do not

“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,

whereas rule 16 said Members must not bring the House into disrepute, which was, in a sense, a mop-up rule. Matters are set out in a more coherent way now, but there is no real change.

[Mr Walker]

I disagree with my hon. Friend about that. The commissioner is clearly trying to give himself powers to investigate Members’ private and personal lives, which is why this amendment has been tabled.

The commissioner’s interpretation of a Member’s status is at odds with that of another regulatory body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which states in its consultations and press releases that a fundamental principle of its scheme is that MPs

“should be treated…as far as possible like other citizens.”

The various regulatory bodies that oversee and adjudicate on our activities cannot reasonably expect to have it both ways. The public now rightly demand that Members of Parliament should face the same rigours that they do in their daily lives. The flip-side of that must be that parliamentarians, “like other citizens”, also have the right to a private life and private space—and in this private space people will, on occasions, make mistakes.

It is in the nature of our job—this vocation—that if these mistakes are large enough, they will be picked up and reported by the press, with all the opprobrium, shame and upset that goes with having our private calamities played out on a national stage. I look back at the personal agonies that the former hon. Members for Croydon Central and Winchester went through in the last Parliament, and I shudder to think how much worse things would have been for them if the parliamentary commissioner, however well intentioned, had been conducting his own forensic investigation into their actions, dragging in family, friends and perhaps other aggravating parties. There would have been months and months of investigation, all in the name of protecting the notional honour of the House.

The Committee does not dismiss the possibility of such investigations. It offers a well-meaning but vague assurance on page 6 of its report that

“like the Commissioner, we do not think the Committee or the House should be drawn into judging a Member's purely private and personal relationships.”

Why is that sentence not worded more forcefully? Why does it equivocate when it could say that “the commissioner and the Committee will not allow the House to be drawn into judging a Member’s purely private and personal relationships”? Why is that assurance not given by the commissioner and the Committee? The reason, I believe, is that it cannot be given because the commissioner knows full well that, almost exclusively, personal scandals and misfortunes are where the action lies.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend’s amendment not create the same problem? If the matter in question were not only to relate to a Member’s conduct, but also affected their ability to be an MP—rank dishonesty falling short of crime, for example—the commissioner would be able to investigate. Does my hon. Friend’s amendment make any difference, therefore?

[Mr Walker]

In his usual helpful way, the broad-minded Leader of the House made it clear in his response to the consultation that he was not aware of any recent cases where a Member’s conduct in their purely private and personal life had been so outrageous that the House or the general public would have wanted action to be taken against the Member. Those pushing this proposal cannot come up with any sensible examples.

The Leader of the House has been in this place for almost 40 years, but while it seems he cannot think of anything worth investigating, the commissioner clearly can. That is why he is promoting this change to the current code of conduct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We welcome the review of the code of conduct by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges commenting on the draft code and the changes that the commissioner has suggested. May I also say at the outset that Labour supports the changes that he has suggested for all-party groups?

As the Committee notes, the code was last revised in 2005 and several areas of it could be usefully clarified, so there is much that we welcome in the review. It is sensible that the code of conduct has remained one of high-level principles, rather than detailed rules. As the chairman of Standards for England noted in his consultation response, there is a danger that having a set of rules

“which is too tightly defined can lead to a complexity which makes understanding of the rules too difficult to grasp which is therefore counter-productive”.

We welcome the fact the commissioner has rejected such an overly prescriptive rules-based approach. There is much that we can welcome in the report, so rather than go into great detail about that, I wish to concentrate on areas where we have some concerns, one of which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

Labour Members believe that the existing code of conduct is working well. That is not only a tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and his Committee, but it is reflected in the responses to the consultation, which did not throw up any major concerns with the status quo. Therefore, any suggestion that the code should be extended into areas not currently covered would need to be backed up by a convincing argument.

In his consultation, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards asked:

“Should the scope of the Code extend to some aspects of a Member’s private and personal life? If so, how should that be expressed in the Code?”

The parliamentary Labour party’s response to the consultation said no to that, as we feared that it would turn the code of conduct into a code of morals. That remains our view, and we are puzzled by the commissioner’s recommendation on this point. The proposed revision to the code states:

“the Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives”.

We agree with that approach, because the code should not seek to do that. However, the proposed new code would go on to state:

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

That is the point that we have all been wrestling with in the debate.

That extension appears to suggest that we, as Members of this House, are entitled to a private life—we are all human, so we are entitled to one under article 8 and the Human Rights Act 1998—unless the commissioner rules that we are not. As the Leader of the House pointed out in his response to the consultation,

“extending the scope of the Code explicitly to cover Members’ private and personal lives could, as you note in the consultation paper, lead to their human rights being infringed.”

What threshold would result in the code coming into action? We are not told. The commissioner’s response to the consultation says that it would be “extremely limited circumstances” that are

“so serious and so blatant”.

However, he gives no further indication of what those might be. Such comments cause further confusion, rather than illuminate what the new situation might be. He gives no clues as to what he thinks those circumstances should be.

So what are these “extremely limited circumstances”? Some attempts have been made in the debate to define them, but those have been unsatisfactory. I am sure if we stood on Westminster bridge and canvassed the views of those who passed by, we would find as many views on what those circumstances should be as people we spoke to. The current commissioner may take a narrow view of what constitute his “extremely limited circumstances”, but his successor may take a more or less narrow view. This is an unsatisfactory situation. The Leader of the House noted in his response to the consultation that we should be

“wary of extending the Code to deal with a purely hypothetical eventuality.”

I agree with that.

As I said at the outset, the existing code is working well. What was needed was tweaking and clarification, not mission creep. Most of the proposed changes to the code are sensible and can easily be supported.

[Oliver Heald]

I rather agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was saying earlier. I do not think there is any intention to extend the scope of the code here. The existing code, before the amendments, did not apply to private conduct, but there was a general provision that no Member must act in a way that brought the House into disrepute. This is about clarifying what those two provisions mean in the amended code. I would have thought that that was something that should happen, even if the hon. Lady is not happy with the exact wording.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a particular point, but I do not think that what the commissioner has suggested is clear either and that is what we are struggling with at the moment. I may be alone in this, but I did not think that we faced a problem that needed the kind of revision that has got us into the confusing situation we are now in.

Members of Parliament are rightly accountable in the courts of law and under the code, as are people in other walks of life. But unlike lawyers, general practitioners or people in any of the other professions, Members of Parliament are accountable at the ballot box for their actions and they are accountable to their political party. The electorate are entitled to make a judgment about a Member’s private life, and about how effectively they pursue their constituency duty and how they treat their constituents—that is how democracy works—but I trust the common sense of the British people to make such judgments; we should leave judgments about morals to them.

Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The Opposition support the principle that lay members should sit on a newly constituted Committee on Standards. We also understand and support the pragmatic solution of splitting the current Committee in two to avoid the complications and uncertainty that could arise if non-MPs were to sit on the Privileges Committee.

When the issue was first considered at the end of last year, we did not seek to divide the House on the approach suggested. Although it is not directly analogous because all MPs are elected—and therefore ultimately accountable to their constituents—the principle of appointing lay members to a standards Committee is widely adopted in other areas of public life. For example, both the Bar Council and the General Medical Council have lay members.

On the other hand, the Press Complaints Commission also has lay members, and given the mess that it now finds itself in, perhaps we should take this opportunity to remind ourselves that lay membership of any committee is not in itself a complete answer to the challenges of upholding the standards of conduct and behaviour expected of any particular group of people, be they lawyers, doctors, MPs or—dare I say it—journalists. Undoubtedly, however, the presence of lay members should reassure the public that the Standards Committee is not some kind of cosy stitch-up but is there to deliver a rigorous and robust process that is fair to all and therefore credible. That is obviously in the public interest.

I congratulate the Procedure Committee on its work on this issue since the House’s resolution last year and on bringing this change about. I note, however, that the Government have ignored the Committee’s recommendation to give the House a further opportunity to vote on the principle of lay membership. Although the Opposition are in favour of the principle, it is noticeable that in evidence to the Procedure Committee a number of Members raised concerns about the appointment of lay members. Those Members included, from the Government Benches, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).

In its report, the Procedure Committee states that

“it is right to register our concern at the level of unease felt by many Members about the House’s decision of 2 December. It may well be that, having considered the examination of the practical and privilege implications as set out in our report, the House may wish to reconsider its view of the principle of adding lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.”

Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government have chosen not to tackle this unease head-on and do as the Procedure Committee suggested? Perhaps it is because of the decision to split the current Committee, but I would like to hear the Government’s explanation for their decision not to have a further vote on the principle itself.

We support the appointment of lay members to the Standards Committee. The Procedure Committee has found that the appointment of lay members is not completely without precedent—it cites a 1933 committee on the future government of India. I must say, however, that that is a rather particular example and not one likely to be replicated any time soon. It must not be assumed that simply appointing lay members to the Standards Committee will do the trick. It is clearly not a panacea.

Moreover, how lay members should take part in Committee proceedings needs to be clearly defined. This the Procedure Committee has done. It has recommended that Members of the House make up the majority of the new Standards Committee—after all, it will be a Committee of the House—and the proposals outlined in the proposed new Standing Orders, which adopt the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, suggest appointing at least two but no more than three lay members. That strikes a sensible balance.

We also agree with the proposed powers of lay members as outlined in the motion. The Standards Committee will be a Committee of the House, and the Members of Parliament who serve on it will be able to do so first and foremost because they successfully stood for election. Therefore, they are ultimately accountable to their constituents for their actions, as are all of us, and following the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, they submit themselves to that judgment every five years. Lay members of the Committee will not be elected but will be appointed, and they will not have to justify their actions at the ballot box.

The Procedure Committee therefore had to consider how that difference could best be accommodated in the day-to-day workings of the Committee. It considered two options: whether members of the Committee should have full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights. In its impressive survey of the history of Committees of the House and the operation of committees in Parliaments around the Commonwealth, the Procedure Committee came across few examples of lay members voting. In its survey of the Commonwealth, only the New South Wales Legislative Assembly had given lay members of a Committee voting rights. But that practice, confined to one Committee in New South Wales, has now ceased.

To give lay members voting rights would also raise difficult questions of privilege, as the Leader of the House pointed out. He also pointed out that the Procedure Committee outlined the issues, as set out in the evidence of the parliamentary Clerk to the Procedure Committee. For those reasons, like the Government, we support the second option, which would mean that lay members could fully participate in the Committee by questioning witnesses but could not vote.

The proposed new Standing Orders require the Committee to publish any paper from a lay member setting out that lay member’s opinion on the report. We recognise that a balance has to be struck if lay members of the Committee are not to have voting rights. Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns raised by some Members, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, about the publication of dissenting reports. I note that the right for a lay member to publish a dissenting report was described in the Government’s weekend spin on our proceedings today as a “golden share”, which is a nicer name for a veto. Perhaps the Leader of the House could let us know in more detail how he sees that power working.

Amendment (b) suggests that ex-Members should be eligible for selection as lay members after only five years out of the House. That seems like a way of ensuring that lay members are not quite lay members and runs the risk of undermining the credibility that the reforms will bring about. Amendment (c) suggests that the membership of the soon-to-be-separated Standards and Privileges Committee should be the same. That runs the risk of undermining the separation, and we believe that the membership of these important Committees could easily be different and certainly should not be made the same by changing the Standing Orders.

I do not want to spend too much time intruding on the debate between the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the Leader of the House, but her amendment raises an extremely important issue about the number of days allocated to her Committee. That is one of those issues that will rumble on. Suffice it to say that I have considerable sympathy with what she says.

We support the other proposals in the proposed new Standing Orders. They are a welcome advance designed to improve public confidence, but they are not a panacea. The PCC, for example, had lay members, and that did not make the body effective or ensure that the organisation retained public confidence. Public confidence in Parliament, as the Leader of the House said, was significantly damaged by the expenses scandal. The appointment of lay members will not in itself restore that confidence, but it is one of many steps taken since then to repair the damage done.

I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, and I believe that, overwhelmingly, Members are committed to public service, strive to serve their constituents and seek at all times to uphold the Nolan principles.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the Nolan principles. I am a member of that committee, in its latest guise, and I wonder whether she agrees that over the years the Committee on Standards in Public Life has done some useful work in scoping out the code of conduct and the work of the commissioner as a fully independent investigator, for example, and of course in proposing lay membership.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I am more than happy to agree with the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made just as I was about to finish my remarks. The Nolan committee clearly has a lot to be proud of for how it has developed the code of conduct—we will have a debate on that later. It has done a great deal to codify and put in good order the standards that should be expected of every single Member of the House.

As I was just about to say, the Opposition support the proposed new Standing Orders and will not seek to divide the House.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I invite the hon. Lady to ask questions of the Department for Work and Pensions on 19 July. She also asked for a debate on this matter, and I suggest that she will find opportunities to raise it during our debates on the Finance Bill on Tuesday 6 July, Monday 12 July, Tuesday 13 July and Thursday 15 July.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I apologise, I meant the Deputy Leader of the House. He will be aware of the WWF’s Rivers on the Edge campaign. There has been great concern in the House for some time about the condition of English chalk streams, and the debate on the subject that we had during the last Parliament was over-subscribed. Will he bear this in mind and see whether we can fit in a debate on the chalk rivers of England?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great affection for the World Wide Fund for Nature because I used to work for it and promote its interests. I hasten to add that that is not a declarable interest. There might be an opportunity for him to raise this important issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 29 July. It would also be an entirely suitable matter for a Westminster Hall debate or an end-of-day Adjournment debate.