Business of the House

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am happy to facilitate a meeting between Home Office officials and the hon. Lady’s office —or indeed herself—to talk about that case and anything that the Department can learn from John’s experiences of going through that process. He will know that we have clear line-of-sight reporting on the costs charged for particular things, but if there has been some injustice, I am sure that meeting will help to rectify the situation.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Last week saw the launch of the independent report that I, together with the Department for Work and Pensions and the leading research charity Autistica, prepared as result of a 10-month review into autism and employment. There is still a huge gap in the number of people in work, with fewer than three in 10 adults who are autistic working, which is way below the disability average. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time in April for a debate in this Chamber on the report and its findings. Will my right hon. Friend use her good offices to ensure that that time is preserved as much as possible, so that colleagues across the House can debate the report’s important recommendations?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the work he has done on the report and on many other areas of deep concern to people with autism and their families. It is a landmark report, and it is wonderful to hear that it will be debated on the Floor of the House. I will ensure that the time is protected and that nothing happens to it. I also congratulate my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions on the work they have done and the proactive way in which they commissioned these findings.

All-party Parliamentary Groups

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As a member of the Committee, I commend the report to the House. I declare my chairmanship of the autism all-party group and co-chairmanship of the European Union all-party group.

The report is an important step forward in several respects, but most notably in how we seek properly to differentiate the labelling and logos used on reports by registered all-party groups—that is, the crowned portcullis with the appropriate title of the group—and the appearance of documents such as the Select Committee report that I have in my hand. It is vital that all-party groups do not seek to publish documents that look like, or could be mistaken for, reports by Committees of this House. We have to do everything we can to make sure that the media do not continue to fall into the trap of making no distinction between the reports of all-party groups and those of Select Committees. That recommendation by our Committee is particularly important.

Standards

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In addressing the House briefly as a member of the Standards Committee, I add my thanks to the Chairman for the hard work that he, with the clerking team, undertakes week in, week out. It is not the most pleasant task to have to adjudicate on fellow Members, but this was an egregious breach, which had to be dealt with by a serious sanction. I echo and will not repeat the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

Let me deal briefly with the status of the lay members, which was raised during the debate. Having joined the Committee at the same time as the lay members, my experience is that they add a refreshing and new perspective to its work and bring us back to the point of view of a reasonable, objective member of the public when assessing the impact of our work and the role that we undertake. That is an invaluable service, and I pay tribute to them for their work thus far.

I am looking forward to the review that will follow as a result of the lay members’ helpful paper, which was published some weeks ago. It is important that we look at other jurisdictions and other Parliaments to see how they do it. I do not pretend that we have all the answers in this House, but it may well be that international comparisons, however interesting, do not quite match the particular context in which our Committee works.

The question of voting rights for lay members is not straightforward. Many members of the Committee, including me, believe that it would be desirable for lay members to have voting rights, but we are mindful of the conclusions of the helpful report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that was published last year. It rightly pointed out that there are potential implications for privilege in conferring voting rights on non-Members of the House. Putting it simply, any attempt to redefine article 9 is laden with perils. It is certainly not my wish for article 9 to be in any way undermined or traduced by rules or legislation, however well intentioned.

The only way forward for the Committee to allow voting rights for lay members is for legislation to be considered specifically for our Committee, but I confess that I am having difficulty in thinking of ways in which it could be drafted that do not undermine the general provisions of article 9. For example, if we as a Committee have a particular legislative regime that allows article 9 to apply to lay members, does that imply that other Committees are not covered by privilege? All sorts of questions need to be considered carefully before we proceed down that road. That is not an attempt by me or other members of the Committee to try to stall on voting rights, but a genuine wish to preserve the ancient rights that this House and these proceedings enjoy under article 9.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House:

(1) approves the Eleventh Report from the Committee on Standards, HC 1225;

(2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 29; and

(3) notes that Patrick Mercer has been disqualified as a Member of this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(3)),

That at this day’s sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to Petitions, Parliamentary privilege and Calling of amendments at the end of debate (amendment of Standing Orders), and the Motion in the name of Mr Charles Walker relating to Programming not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions, and shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Brooks Newmark relating to the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Lansley.)

Question agreed to.

House of Commons Business

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I am looking forward to my hon. Friend’s speech, in which I believe he will go into the detail of the work we all hope the Procedure Committee will be doing as it looks to the future. I hope it will be able to come up with recommendations that the whole House can agree on as to how to make the e-petitions system more robust, transparent and understandable to members of the public. I know that he will have important points to make about that. The Opposition look forward to working with the Procedure Committee as it drafts proposals for implementation at the start of the next Parliament.

We must be careful not to see e-petitions as some kind of silver bullet that will help us to solve the crisis of political engagement in our country. Undoubtedly they have a part to play, but we have to keep things in perspective. This Government came to office making some very grand promises about the “biggest shake-up” of British democracy since the Great Reform Act 1832, but the reality has been somewhat smaller in scope than that vainglorious ambition: we have had a failed attempt to reform the Lords, a massive and clearly partisan increase in the number of unelected peers, and a lobbying Act so bad it should actually have been described as a charter for lobbyists. Ranged against the massive failure of delivery, making welcome but small and slow progress on e-petitions seems a very small improvement, although a welcome one.

That brings me on to the second motion, which concerns the outcome of the Government’s work on parliamentary privilege. The Conservative party began this in opposition by promising a parliamentary privilege Act to make sure that MPs cannot

“claim parliamentary privilege to evade justice”.

That intention was repeated in the Conservative manifesto and in the subsequent coalition agreement. Since then, it has become clear from the outcome of court cases, especially the Chaytor judgment, that MPs cannot use parliamentary privilege to evade justice, and that the current Government were actually tilting at windmills when they were in opposition. Following the Government’s Green Paper on privilege and the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was published in June 2013, it has become clear that there is no need for a parliamentary privilege Act. Today’s motion implicitly accepts that and instead suggests a few minor but sensible clarifications of existing practice.

The motion accepts the Joint Committee’s suggestion in paragraphs 226 and 227 of its report that any legislation which creates individual rights that might impinge on the activities of both Houses should, for the avoidance of doubt, expressly say so. That will reinforce official guidance issued by the Treasury Solicitor in 2002, which has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is certainly desirable that there is consistency across government about the way in which Bills are drafted when they may impinge on this issue, and the Opposition support this clarification. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) helpfully pointed out, it is in the interests of a healthy parliamentary democracy that MPs can speak on the Floor of the House without fear of being sued for libel by powerful interests which may be seeking to silence them—that is an example of how this principle is applied in practice. In many ways, I feel that the term “privilege” could almost have been invented to be misunderstood as meaning some kind of privilege for individuals—Members of this House—which puts them above the rights of others. We have that capacity to speak in this way only so that we can represent the interests of our constituents and those who voted to send us to this place. That is surely in the interests of robust democracy. The term “privilege” is often very misunderstood by people outside in a very unhelpful way.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady puts the point very well. To reinforce what she says about privilege attracting to proceedings in Parliament as opposed to individuals, may I say that members of the public who give evidence in Select Committee proceedings can be protected by that privilege too? That is an important example of the relevance of proceedings as opposed to individuals here.

[Ms Eagle]

I could not agree more. I believe the hon. Gentleman served on the Joint Committee—

[Mr Buckland]

No, I served on the Committee on Standards.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee on Standards, makes an extremely good point: the term “privilege” applies not only to Members of Parliament, but, much more appropriately, to proceedings of this Parliament. That is there to protect our democracy from being undermined by powerful forces which may have more finance at their disposal to try to intimidate those who wish to represent their constituents robustly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a knotty and a thorny issue. I suspect that we need a translation of the term, so that lay people who are not technically proficient in constitutional law can understand that it is a good thing rather than something that gives Members of Parliament, or others who may be giving evidence in the House, a significant advantage.

[Mr Buckland]

I am fascinated by this aspect of the debate. I think that the London mob of the 1640s understood what the word “privilege” meant when they used to shout it at the King as he passed by in his carriage. I think we should stop apologising to the public and assuming that they are not capable of understanding such words. If we show leadership and explain the meaning of the words, of course the public will understand them. Let us avoid iconoclasm; let us use these honoured and great words in the spirit in which they were originally intended.

[Ms Eagle]

I always worry about iconoclasm. There have been certain ages in our history when it has played an interesting role. Perhaps Members should embark on a tour immediately to explain to people out there how important these concepts are to the health of our democracy. I think we all agree on that, but we need to translate it into phrases that can be easily understood by those who do not have a degree in constitutional law.

As I have said, we are more than happy to support the general view that the Government have now reached, after much work. They have sensibly declined to introduce a codification of parliamentary privilege, and have provided helpful clarifications. However, I have one further question to ask before I leave the issue of privilege. The Joint Committee suggested in its report that the Government should repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which might more accurately have been named “the Hamilton amendment”. It was disgracefully inserted by the last Conservative Government to facilitate the issuing of a libel action in the “cash for questions” scandal by the then Conservative Member of Parliament, now UKIP fundraiser, Neil Hamilton, allowing him to waive privilege in order to sue The Guardian. The Joint Committee observed that that had created indefensible anomalies which should not be allowed to continue, and I agree. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Deputy Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to repeal section 13 through the Deregulation Bill, which is due to be debated in the House on Wednesday.

The third motion relates to a proposed trial of new arrangements for the tabling of amendments to Bills on Report. I welcome the suggested earlier deadline, and agree that it is important to ensure that we have enough time to draft a detailed supplementary programme motion that will enable us to debate all the groups of amendments. During the current Parliament, too much legislation has been passed without the House having had an adequate chance to debate it. The Government have also got into the habit of dropping controversial changes to their Bills into the legislative stages in the Lords, thereby avoiding effective scrutiny in the Commons.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is perhaps the most egregious example of that wholly regrettable practice. It was inserted into a Bill at the last minute during its House of Lords stages. The Bill then returned to the Commons, but our amendments were effectively talked out. We were able to debate the board’s abolition in the Chamber on an Opposition day, but by then the legislation had already been passed.

Business of the House

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I assure the hon. Lady that the cost controls around HS2 are very firm. This substantial and important project is going to provide the biggest boost to our rail network since the Victorian era. On the specific issue about her locality, the Government have set aside substantial investment to ensure that other projects around the country are delivered. She may wish to raise the matter at Transport questions on 7 November.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Could time be found for a debate on human rights in Russia, given that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the imprisonment of Amnesty prisoner of conscience Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was imprisoned in a gulag in the Arctic circle for having the temerity to disagree with the President?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Europe issued a statement marking the 10-year anniversary of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s arrest and met his son on 10 October to discuss the situation. The Government have significant concerns about the processes used to convict Khodorkovsky and continue to call for him to be released on schedule next August. The promotion and protection of human rights is a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia and we regularly raise it at all levels.

It may be appropriate to add that, since I announced the business statement, I have been informed of further business. On Thursday 31 October, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the oversight of the intelligence and security services.

Business of the House

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I encourage the Select Committee to seek time for such a debate through the Liaison Committee, which has a certain allocation of time, although the Backbench Business Committee has substantial time available in the week after next, and not only on Thursday, so I hope it will take good advantage of that, not just in respect of the school governance issue but also in the light of what we have read this week in the OECD report. I have to say I was staggered by this simple fact, if by nothing else: we are among the three highest performing countries in literacy for 55 to 65-year-olds, but we are among the bottom three countries in literacy proficiency among 16 to 24-year-olds. All of us in public service and public office should be ashamed of the fact that we are not making progress in improving literacy and numeracy skills among the young people currently leaving school and those who have been leaving school over recent years. That is shameful, and we in this House should focus on it.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

May we find time for an urgent debate on the deteriorating situation in the Maldives, where the first round of a presidential election has been annulled and it is feared the authorities are trying to obstruct the return to power of President Nasheed, who was ousted in a coup last year and who clearly won an election that was described by international observers as free and fair?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, these are disturbing circumstances. I have not visited the Maldives, but many people in this country are familiar with it from holidays and the like, and I will ask my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to update the House on this matter at oral questions, if not before.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson),who, I know, speaks from the heart on this and many other subjects. I agree with his analysis of the pressures faced by many working people who have one, two or even more jobs to do during the working week, but I must point out to him that the motion does not do what he wants. It is very narrowly defined. It deals with particular types of financial relationship, but it does not deal with partnerships or with contracts of employment. In his powerful speech, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) demolished the basis for the motion.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Apart from the obvious point that the motion is defective—it does not mention earnings from, for instance, rented property—it constitutes an attempt to create a political class. The only way in which such people can express themselves, earn more money, or gain more power or prestige is to become Ministers, and that plays into the hands of Front Benchers. It gives them more and more power, and puts us more and more in their pockets.

[Mr Buckland]

If we breed a political class that enters this place with a diminished and diminishing knowledge of the outside world, the walls of the Westminster bubble will become thicker and thicker and we will genuinely create two nations, one of which will be entirely ignorant of the other.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I spent 23 years working for a citizens advice bureau—outside Parliament—before I came to this place, and I continue to have regular meetings with citizens advice bureaux, in addition to my constituency surgeries. I believe that keeps me in touch with the real world sufficiently, without having another job operating a fraud trial.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, and I sincerely pay tribute to the work she does. She understands that by keeping in touch she is making sure that her considerable knowledge does not go out of date, which is a very important point. A lot of Opposition Members and Government Members bring knowledge and work experience to this place, but there is a danger that once we enter the House we start to lose touch with our job experiences. That is why I decided after the election not to carry on practising at the Bar, but to sit part-time as a Crown court recorder, where I do 15 days in the year. That is the minimum required, and the appointment was made just before I was elected to this House.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman surrender his salary during the time he is away from this place, as would happen in any other job? Another hon. Member said that he was away on a court case, but should he not have his wages here reduced, as would happen in any other occupation where someone is not available to do the full-time job for which they get a full-time wage?

[Mr Buckland]

I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. I do not do that, but I do keep fully in touch with what is going on, as with my work as a Member of Parliament. The fact that I, on 15 days of the year, choose to serve the public interest—that is what sitting as a part-time judge involves—keeps me in touch with the work that I used to do as a lawyer. It makes me keep up to date with sentencing law and the law of criminal justice, and it enhances the contributions I can make in this House. What is wrong with that?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making a case in his usual reasonable and considered way. Does he agree that the experience and knowledge he gains in carrying out his role is hugely valuable, and is a great benefit and boon to the constituents he helps daily?

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not the first person to do this—many former Labour Members, including a number of distinguished ones I can think of, did exactly the same and brought great experience to this House. They probably brought greater learning than I do. If we lose touch with that experience, this place will become the poorer. In the race to the hair shirts, we will throw out a lot of the beneficial influences that can be brought into this place.

[Oliver Colvile]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I had better not give way any further because I am running out of time. I accept that it is for individual Members to make judgments about the balances they have to strike—believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I view it as a great honour and privilege to serve the people of my constituency, and I think about that every working moment. However, I do feel that I strike a fair balance in the work I do. I am available for my constituents and I work as hard as any other MP to fight for their interests. Bringing into this place the work that I have done in the past and the experience that I have gained, and keeping in touch with it in the way I do during the recess is beneficial.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, too, is being sincere in what he is saying, but does he not think it slightly incongruous that this House is the last place where what he describes is possible? Even in the other place people are not allowed to be part of the Chamber and part of the judiciary.

[Mr Buckland]

I do not think that is actually right, because the office of recorder was not included in the exemptions in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, of course, was passed by the previous Labour Government. I make no apology for that, because I believe that individual—

[Jon Trickett]

Separation of powers.

[Mr Buckland]

I hear the words “separation of powers”, but we do not have an American system, and nor should we have. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we turn ourselves into something not at all in keeping with the understood and learned traditions of the British constitution. It can be a good thing that several colleagues in this place have the sort of experience that I have, although I would be the last person to say that we want an identikit House full of lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a powerful speech about his medical practice, so people’s experience in many walks of life enhances our debates.

If the spasm of emotion that underlies what we hear from Labour Members is taken to its logical conclusion, the House will be diminished. Their proposal would not enhance the quality of the legislation that we pass. It would only make the public look at us once again as a rather odd set of individuals of diminishing relevance who contribute less and less to the public life of this country, so we should oppose the motion.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Miliband]

I will come back to my right hon. Friend if I can. The real question is whether an elected second Chamber with 15-year terms will overwhelm the conventions and understandings that establish the primacy of this place, and that we all defend. I can see the truth in the argument that an elected upper House will be more demanding of the Executive, and lead to more robust debate. It might—probably will—make life more difficult for Government, though contrary to the editorial in The Times and what the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said, Cross Benchers will be protected, and will hold the balance of power in the new House. Personally, I think that a more robust challenge to the Executive from the second Chamber would be a good thing. It would make for a better Parliament. To be fair to myself, I argued for that when I was in government, as well as in opposition.

I cannot, however, see the truth in the argument that that greater challenge—that more robust debate—will lead to such difficulties that the Lords will overrun the Commons. This House will form the Government, control the finances, and have the constituency link; this House will always have the most recent—and only—electoral mandate; and this House will hold up its sleeve the ace of the Parliament Acts, which regulate the role of the other place on financial matters, and provide that this House will get its way.

In Lord Pannick’s submission to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, he made the point that

“it is absolutely vital…for the reform Bill to specify with clarity whether or not it is the intention that the Parliament Acts should continue to apply”.

That is the Government’s intention. We must make sure, in Committee, that in all scenarios, the Parliament Acts are completely protected. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), said yesterday that he did not want justiciability, and I understand that argument. If we are to go with that argument, we must be absolutely sure that we cement the role of the Parliament Acts, which Lord Pannick says is possible.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Offord]

It will be through the canvass. I hope, as I continue with my speech, that it will become clearer to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister what I seek to achieve by tabling the amendment.

The introduction of individual registration allows blind and disabled electors to specify at registration the format in which they wish to receive the information, including Braille, tape, large print, easy read, and so on. That would mean that a blind elector could specify when registering to vote that they would need to receive a polling card in a Braille or other format, or that they would require an audio postal vote application form. Allowing individuals to specify what format they need enables EROs to plan more effectively and meet the needs of a variety of disabled people who all encounter different barriers. Gathering data on voters’ preferred formats would enable EROs to send forms and information in that appropriate format and avoid having to make assumptions about voters’ needs. For instance, while Braille is used by some blind people, other formats may be just as important for blind and partially sighted people, including large print.

The registration form could also capture requirements to enable physical access to the polling station or for the support that voters may need in casting a vote. Provided that such information is shared with a returning officer, it could be used to ensure that those needs are met in the run-up to polling day and on polling day itself. It should be obvious, for instance, which voters may need a large print ballot paper and how many copies need to be provided at one or other polling station.

Recording information on access needs could not only be used to inform planning by electoral administrators, but is consistent with the Government’s goals in introducing individual registration to encourage individuals to take responsibility for registering themselves to vote. It should also be up to an individual to specify what alternative format they prefer. It is well known that the transition to IER is taking place in a climate of significant pressures on electoral budgets. Providing alternative formats involves some cost, but it is important to recognise that such a provision would not place any additional duties on EROs other than those they already have. Rather than increasing costs, such a measure would allow existing resources to be used more effectively.

I have tabled the amendment to support the recommendation made by the Electoral Commission for a scheme to be piloted that would involve EROs asking for individual access needs of electors at the point of registration. Piloting that would provide valuable guidance to EROs on the most suitable system for maintaining registration forms and their associated access needs records, as well as allow the Government to assess the merits for such a provision to be rolled out.

I hope that the Minister decides to accept the amendment, because I remain unaware of the validity of any claim that under the current legislation the Government already have sufficient powers to introduce the pilot—a view supported by the Electoral Commission and disability groups such as Scope, which have already impressed it on the Government. However, if it is asserted that that power already exists in other legislation, I can tell the Minister that the amendment would specifically ensure that the registration process itself is used to identify and meet access needs. No other legislation provides for the registration process to be used for that purpose. Given that, I believe the registration process to be the most effective mechanism for achieving both improvements for disabled people and benefits for electoral staff.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment and wish that I had had time to sign it, because I am with him entirely—in spirit if not on the Order Paper. Is not the function of this probing amendment, as he says, to identify the need to husband our existing resources far more effectively, rather than taking a more scatter-gun approach that will not address the fundamental needs of disabled people?

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is entirely right. This will be an opportunity to define what people need so that we can ensure that EROs’ resources are used most effectively and that the electoral registration process is suitable for blind and partially sighted people.

It may be asserted that such a provision already exists in the Bill, under the power to make regulations in clause 2. That will give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the type of evidence that a person must provide to establish eligibility to register to vote. The Government could argue that that includes a power to ensure that access needs are recorded at registration, but I believe that the clause is limited to prescribing evidence that is needed to establish eligibility and therefore cannot be used to achieve the same purpose as my amendment.

I believe that the Minister is a considerate man. If he chooses not to accept the amendment, will he please explain where he believes the power currently lies for the Government to carry out a pilot scheme in order to provide assurances about how information, forms and notices relating to the electoral process in alternative forms will be provided to blind and disabled people at future elections, and will he indicate when that will be achieved?

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I do not accept that. I am not a lawyer, but I have had 18 years’ experience in the House of Commons, and I recall similar situations in which, unfortunately—and I mean unfortunately—Ministers have been put in the stressful position of having to defend themselves. Again unfortunately, on occasion over the years they have not been able to defend themselves, and have gone.

What was necessary on this occasion was the opportunity for an independent adviser to examine the Secretary of State’s actions. I understood from his responses that he firmly believes that he has done nothing wrong, and he is entitled to that belief, but questions are being asked by colleagues on all sides. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) has said that the coalition partners feel that there are questions to be answered.

Surely the Secretary of State must understand the depth of feeling among Opposition Members about some of the processes that took place. Certainly I, as a former Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, could not believe that the special adviser had been given so much power to act in the way that he did. During our time in government, we dealt with the sale of the Tote and with the issue of the “crown jewels” —the question of what should and should not be televised. We received clear briefings from the permanent secretary about what our legal responsibilities were and about what we could not do.

When the Secretary of State made his statement some months ago, I asked him why the political adviser had been given the role of backstop or contact with News International. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, given all the furore surrounding the issue and, in particular, the actions of the Business Secretary, the Secretary of State put himself in a terrible position—or was put in that position by the Prime Minister—in relation to the Department’s roles.

When we asked why the permanent secretary supported this action, the Secretary of State said that the permanent secretary had been “content”. The meaning of the word “content” is open to question. When the permanent secretary went to the Public Accounts Committee, he refused to answer questions on the issue. He has gone before the Leveson inquiry, but I can tell the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) that none of the pertinent questions relating to this issue were asked at the inquiry. Where can parliamentarians get the opportunity to ask the questions that needed to be asked?

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I know that he has considerable ministerial experience. He has made the point, properly, that when quasi-judicial procedures are adopted, Ministers must act very carefully within guidelines. Where is the hard evidence that this Secretary of State did not act in accordance with the careful strictures of the quasi-judicial procedure? It is all very well talking about feelings, but where is the evidence?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen raised that point in his questions to the Secretary of State. He also raised the issue of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the special adviser. I am beginning to support the ideas of the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. If an independent adviser had had an opportunity to see that there was a problem—because it was a problem raised by Members in all parts of the House—that person could have investigated further. That was not the situation. I ask Members of all parties to consider how the public see this matter in relation to the wider issues. The press have taken a view, but how do the public get to find out what has taken place?

I have been a strong supporter of this House over many years, and believe we should be able to inquire about things through our Select Committee processes and so forth. As a Minister, I was happy to appear before Select Committees. There is an untold story here, however, and until it is told, with the opportunity for questioning, we will never know what happened. That is a terrible position for the Secretary of State to be in. I respect him and have had good dealings with him over many years, but I think he has been left in a vulnerable position by the Prime Minister, because an independent person has not at least had an opportunity to ascertain the facts, after which the Prime Minister can make a decision.