Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ‘, for’ in line 10 and insert—

‘(1) In section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (qualification for jury service)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (c) (but not the “and” after it),

(b) omit subsection (2), and

(c) in subsection (3), for “Part 2 of the Schedule” substitute “Schedule 1”.

(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (the title to which becomes “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”, with the title to Part 1 becoming “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and the title to Part 2 becoming “Other Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”)’.

My amendment would make a minor technical change to the amendments the Bill makes to the Juries Act 1974. It would remove the term “mentally disordered persons” from section 1 of the Act and tidy up the cross-referencing between section 1 and the list of those disqualified for jury service in schedule 1. The amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).

Specifically, the references to “Mentally disordered persons” in section 1 of the 1974 Act will be removed and further provisions made in section 1 consequential to that. That will leave the section so worded as to provide that those persons listed in schedule 1 to the 1974 Act will be disqualified from jury service. The title of schedule 1 to that Act will be amended to read “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”. The headings to parts I and II of schedule 1 are amended accordingly, from “Mentally disordered persons” to “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and from “Persons disqualified” to “Other persons disqualified for jury service” respectively. The substantive change that the Bill makes to the 1974 Act, which is to remove the disqualification on service as a juror from those who voluntarily receive treatment in the community for a mental health disorder, remains the same.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I support the amendment. It will not change the Bill’s original wording to a great extent, but the language implications are very important. We must ensure that we deal with people who suffer from mental illness without the stigma of titles, so this small amendment is important. Clause 2 is also very important. Since we started discussing the Bill, I have received numerous e-mails and correspondence about it. A solicitor wrote to me to say that although she practises in court every day, she cannot be a juror because she is currently undergoing treatment for a mental health condition. The amendment would make a small change to the language, but I think it is important for the wider debate and for the wider implications of the Bill to ensure that we end discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I support the amendment and welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I want to raise a point that I do not think is covered by the Bill but which is associated with the thought: whether someone who has or has had a mental health condition and who feels that they would not be capable of serving as a juror at a particular time can say so and whether that would be accepted by the court. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might not be able to answer straight away, but I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know later, perhaps in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) not only on selecting this subject for his private Member’s Bill but on eloquently arguing its case throughout its parliamentary stages. He can rightly congratulate himself—of course, he will feel in need of some congratulations in Croydon after yesterday’s by-election result—on arguing so strongly for it. As a member of the small club of individuals who have got a private Member’s Bill passed by the House—I hope to welcome him to it—I know about the hard work that has to go into steering a Bill through this House. He was right to thank the staff, who I think will not be encouraging him to put in for the ballot in future given the amount of work that they have done.

The Bill should be supported because it gets rid of anachronistic legislative provisions. The provision on the disqualification of Members of Parliament has changed very little since 1886. The only thing that has changed is the description of who has to draw up the report for you, Mr Speaker. Possibly some of the language has been modified over the years, but in effect the same provision still applies.

Another issue is jury service. The existing provisions stigmatise those who are receiving treatment for mental illness by saying that they can practise as a solicitor or a barrister but cannot serve on a jury. That makes no sense at all. The important provision about company directorships has not received a great deal of coverage during the passage of the Bill, but it will make a difference to company directors who suffer from mental illness.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is important not only for those provisions but for the broader message that it sends out about the view of this House and of society about mental illness. I, too, pay tribute to the organisations that he mentioned, which have campaigned and worked very hard not only on making sure that there is support for the Bill but on helping to ensure that the stigma around mental health is eradicated. Will the Bill in itself do that? No, it will not—I do not think that for one minute—but I hope that it will show, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this House is determined to ensure that mental health stigma becomes a thing of the past.

It will take time to change people’s attitudes, but the debate in this House on 14 June and the passage of the Bill show that mental illness is on the political radar and will not go away. I encourage the House to continue the debate because our recent debates show that this is an issue that we should talk about. Mental illness is often not prioritised in terms of resources or in the workplace because it is not talked about. Let us hope that we will continue to talk openly about mental illness, not as something that is an impediment to people making a full contribution to public life or to their own personal life and development, but as something that, with effective treatment and support, allows individuals to make a proper and rightful contribution to society.

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central again for bringing the Bill forward and congratulate him on the way in which he has done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with that point, but there is no difference between that example and a Member who has a stroke and goes into a long-term vegetative state. There is no provision to remove such a Member. The Bill is just saying that mental illness should be on a par with other medical conditions.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with that point. I am merely using this opportunity to ensure that people know exactly what the Bill would do and to check whether there are potential anomalies. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the same situation applies to people with other conditions and that there should perhaps be no difference between them.

Another anomaly that may arise is that somebody could stand for Parliament and continue as a Member of Parliament who may not be eligible to vote because of the existing regulations on voting. As this is a Third Reading debate, I must talk only about what is in the Bill, rather than what should be in the Bill, but I hope that you will allow me to say in passing, Mr Speaker, that perhaps the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central in this field is not yet done. Although I support the Bill, it might create anomalies that we have to come back to on another occasion. I therefore hope that this is a work in progress.

I am not sure whether the provisions on juries deal with somebody who has just been released from being sectioned or who ought to have been sectioned but has not been because nobody knows about their condition. Perhaps the Bill might have been better if it had included an additional time period for such people. I am not sure whether the lack of such a period will cause a problem. The point has been well made throughout the debate that mental illness is not necessarily permanent or constant, but safeguards need to be in place to limit the exposure of those with recent conditions and those who have perhaps not been identified.

The proposals on company directors cover the model articles of association for normal companies and right-to-manage companies. Unless I have missed something, which is not impossible, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a company from using the old provisions in its articles of association if it chooses to deviate from the model articles of association. Will companies that are already in existence be affected by the Bill? If so, and if it has an immediate effect, what will happen if a company has already invoked this particular part of their articles of association from the model version and is in the middle of proceedings? If the Bill affects only new companies, does that mean that the 2.5 million companies that are already registered with Companies House will not be covered? It is important that we deal with the model articles of association because they are the default position, but have we missed something with regard to individual articles of association? What happens if a company has only one director and they have the most serious long-term mental health condition?

I support my hon. Friend—the whole House should support and congratulate him—but there are anomalies in the Bill, and the Bill might create even more. I hope the House can tackle those in future to ensure that we do what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intend, which is to give the best possible opportunities to people with mental health problems, who for far too long have been unfairly discriminated against under the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and to make one final point. I have a very high regard for my hon. Friend. As he said, we do not agree on every issue, but he is an excellent Member of this House. He made two points and I thought it was worth making one further point in response. He asked about the value of repealing legislation if it has never been used. There is a danger with the law as it currently stands of an hon. Member with a health condition being reluctant to seek medical treatment because of the consequences—the risk of losing their job.

The Speaker’s Conference recommended that a Select Committee might look at how the wider issue of the lack of constituents’ representation if their MP has a serious mental or physical health condition is addressed beyond the informal arrangements to which the Minister referred.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is a problem because, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) said, I think most parties will put informal arrangements in place, as they do for MPs who suffer from long-term physical conditions, or those who take holidays on reality TV shows in Australia.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I shall start by declaring two interests. First, I am the president of the Chester-le-Street branch of Mind in my constituency. Secondly, I have suffered in the past from depression and still occasionally have what I call my “black dog” days, although I now know how to deal with them, thanks to the help that I have received over the years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on introducing the Bill. I also congratulate—as did the hon. Member for Broxbourne—Lord Stevenson of Coddenham on his tireless work in this area. I look forward to the hon. Member for Croydon Central joining an exclusive club, of which I am a member, when the Bill becomes an Act. It is difficult for a Back-Bench Member to get a Bill enacted into law, and they need to do a great deal of work, not only on the Bill’s preparation but on ensuring that they are on top of all the issues. Back Benchers do not have an army of civil servants to help them. When I introduced my Bill, which became the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004, I would certainly have struggled without the help of my dedicated researcher.

Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I have had a very positive experience since I spoke on 14 June about my mental illness. I have received thousands of e-mails, letters and other communications from people I know and from complete strangers from all walks of life. I have found it quite a humbling experience. Actually, I suspected all along that I might get such a response.

In the lead-up to today’s debate, I have also received a lot of supportive letters and e-mails. I have also been urging other people to support this worthwhile Bill. Earlier in the week, however, I received a communication from—I shall try to use my language carefully—an ill-informed individual who asked, “Why does this matter? Aren’t you just trying to make an exception for MPs? Why should they be different?” As the hon. Member for Croydon Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) have already pointed out, this is not just about Members of Parliament. This is about trying to lift the stigma that, unfortunately, even in 2012, still attaches to mental health, and about helping people to come forward to get the support that they need.

When I was thinking about what I was going to say today, I decided to look back at the history of the legislation on this issue. The thing that saddened me is that it has not changed a great deal in 126 years. The use of language might be different but what the legislation actually does has not changed since 1886. Earlier, in July 1849, the then Member for Thirsk, John Bell, was considered, in the language of the day, to be a lunatic. The House of Commons set up a body entitled the Commission of Lunacy, which concluded that he was, in its word, a “lunatic”. He was telling his constituents and friends that he was a bird, and that he could fly faster than a bird because he oiled his wings. The commission found him to be a lunatic, but could do nothing about it. Sadly, he died in 1851.

The Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act 1886 has already been mentioned. The very good House of Commons Library found me a copy of it, so that I could see how the law differed from the present legislation. Apart from the use of language, nothing very much has changed. If someone becomes aware of a Member of Parliament being of unsound mind, they are still required to report it to the Speaker. That is a legal obligation under the 1886 Act, whose provisions require magistrates or other persons in whose care the Member might be placed, including those in charge of lunatic asylums or other areas where a lunatic might reside, to certify the committal or detention of the Member to the Speaker.

There is some great language in the 1886 Act. In those days, the Speaker had to submit a certificate

“if the place of such reception, committal, or detention is in England, to the Commissioners in Lunacy in England; if such place is in Scotland, to the Board of Commissioners in Lunacy in Scotland; and if such place is in Ireland, to the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland.”

A report had to be drawn up on the condition of the Member of Parliament in question. If necessary, after six months another report had to be drawn up. If the individual was found, in the language of the day, still to be a lunatic, the Speaker would then make the seat vacant and issue a warrant for a by-election. There was no right of appeal.

I then looked at the Mental Health Act 1959, hoping that attitudes might have become a bit more progressive and that things might have changed. The basis of process was exactly the same, however. The only things that had changed were the language and the people who needed to commission the report. In the 1959 Act, the Member was to be visited and examined

“where the member is to be visited in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, by the President of the Royal College of Physicians of London”—

and

“in Scotland, by the President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the President of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, acting jointly”.

So nothing had changed apart from the people who needed to draw up the reports. There was still no right of appeal against their decisions, and the Member could still be disqualified if they were found still to be of unsound mind after six months.

I felt sure that the situation would have radically changed by 1983, but the Mental Health Act of that year retains the basis of the 1886 legislation. The procedure still involves the need to report Members who are considered to be of unsound mind, as well as the production of a report, and a further report after six months. The only change is that, under section 141(3):

“The registered medical practitioners…shall be appointed by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and shall be practitioners appearing to the President to have special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorders.”

We therefore still have on the statute book a law that dates back to 1886. The only change since that time relates to the people who draw up the reports for the Speaker on whether they consider the Member to be suffering from a mental disorder. There is still no right of appeal, although there would be in most tribunals. It is therefore important that this Bill should be passed through Parliament, and I welcome the support for it from the Government and those on the Opposition Front Bench.

The 1983 Act has never been used in relation to a Member of Parliament, but section 141 is still on the statute book. Other countries around the world, including former eastern bloc countries, use mental health to silence opposition. Sadly, in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, that is still happening today. We have a piece of legislation on our statute book that could be used for that purpose and, if we are to set an example to the rest of the world, it is right that we should pass this Bill.

John Bell died before any legislation was introduced, and he therefore could not be disqualified. The 1886 Act has been used for this purpose only once. Charles Leach was elected to represent Colne Valley in West Yorkshire in 1910, and disqualified in 1916. Interestingly, in the 1910 election, he defeated Victor Grayson. Anyone who knows the history of that period will know that Victor Grayson disappeared, and some might argue that he was another individual who suffered from some type of mental illness.

From what I have read about this former Member for Colne Valley, he was a quite independent minded and progressive individual. He started as a member of the Independent Labour party, but his mental health deteriorated—obviously during a period in which the Liberals were in office—in 1910, and he then stood for Colne Valley. He was also a Methodist preacher and he was appointed as a chaplain to the armed forces. During the first world war, he had to visit in London hospitals those who had been injured on the western front. His mental health clearly deteriorated over time. He was not, of course, sectioned in those days, but he was a committed to what was the aptly named Northumberland house, which was a private lunatic asylum in north London, under the powers of the 1886 Act. Sadly, he died in 1919, aged 72. Some people say that if the legislation has been used only once, what is its purpose?

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Speaking as the Member now representing Colne Valley, I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I also want to praise the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), too, for giving way and for the way in which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have spoken so honestly about their own mental health issues. Today is the first day I have ever attended debates on private Members’ Bills; I have been inspired to do so on this important issue. Someone very close to me is tackling mental health issues, so it is an emotional day for me as well. Because the hon. Member for North Durham mentioned Colne Valley, I thought I would stand up to praise him and others who have talked so passionately and emotionally about this important issue.

[Mr Jones]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I would like to give a plug for my right hon. Friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who is another former Member for Colne Valley. If anyone wants to read a good book on Victor Grayson, I would recommend Lord Clark’s book—a very interesting read.

As to the need for changing the legislation if it has been used only once, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, it is necessary because it stigmatises people suffering with their mental health. There is no such provision for people with physical disabilities. It is possible for an MP to have a stroke or to be in a coma, yet there is no mechanism for removing such an MP from this House. Some Members may recall the vote of confidence in 1979. If the stories that go around are to be believed, some individuals who voted in it were brought into Palace Yard when they were allegedly not compos mentis—and died shortly afterwards. Their alleged condition was no hindrance to them voting.

Is this important for MPs? Yes, it is. Over the last few months, I have received e-mails from young people. One moving one was from a Cambridge graduate who was going through a difficult depression. She said that she had always wanted to enter politics and be a local councillor—I have to say that I questioned her mental health because she was a Conservative—and that what the hon. Member for Broxbourne and I had said had given her some hope that people could still enter public life without any stigma over their mental health. What we are doing under current legislation is writing off an entire group of people who can make perfectly valid contributions to society in whatever role they play.

Another e-mail I received was from a lawyer. She said that she had suffered from depression in the past and was still on medication, yet she practised every week in courts in Leeds. As she said, under the present legislation, she can practise law, but she cannot be a juror. That makes complete nonsense of the law. As we see from examples like this, it is important to raise the wider issue of how we de-stigmatise mental health.

This is the second occasion in only a matter of months on which we have debated mental health in this Chamber. That is important because, as others have said, we are seen to be in touch with what is going on in the wider community. Since I spoke on 14 June—this applies to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, too—I have been surprised by the number of people I meet who say, on the quiet, that they or people close to them have suffered from mental illness. I said it on 14 June and I will say it again—there are no barriers to mental health issues; mental illness can affect anyone.

Following the debate on 14 June, three individuals—I will not mention them by name—contacted me, and reinforced the point about there being no barriers. The first was a senior chief executive of a large council in the north, who I have known for many years. She is a very strong individual, probably the last person anyone would think had suffered from mental illness. Perhaps the most remarkable was a retired general with whom I worked when I was the Minister for veterans in the Ministry of Defence. Again, he is the last person anyone would think had suffered from depression, but he had and, as he said, he still does in his retirement. Most of his peers would have been quite surprised if they knew this. The third individual is a very good friend of mine who is a senior executive in a well-known plc at board level. No one passing him on the street, watching him speak on television or reflecting on his competent manner in running his large international business would think that he had suffered from severe depression. Those examples show that there are no barriers to mental health problems; they can affect everyone.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central paid tribute to Rethink Mental Illness and the Time for Change campaign, which is making a real difference. The Royal College of Psychiatrists should also be mentioned as well as Mind, which has done much in recent work to raise awareness. The clear message that needs to go out is that this is something we need to talk about. It is no good thinking that these issues affect only a small percentage of the population; it affects many.

I welcome the well-known individuals who have spoken out about their own mental health. Alastair Campbell has been instrumental in the Time for Change campaign, along with Ruby Wax and Stephen Fry. It is important that they have spoken out; they are successful people, perhaps even role models, when it comes to talking about this issue. I congratulate Channel 4 on its season a few weeks ago, when an entire week featured programmes about mental health and people who suffered from mental illness. It showed again the variety of individuals who can suffer from it.

Another clear message I want to send out today is that mental illness is no barrier to making a productive contribution to life—whether it be in public life, family life or in the local community. The more we talk about the issue, the better. It will take time to erase the stigma that is still there around mental illness, but I think we are making great strides and that this Bill is an important step forward.

In closing, I say again that we should talk about this issue more—in this place and elsewhere. I am not going to say to individuals in this Chamber, or anywhere else, who have suffered from mental illness that they should speak about it if they do not feel comfortable doing so, as it is an entirely personal decision. I am not pointing fingers and saying that people should do this. I leave affected individuals out there today with this thought—one with which I know the hon. Member for Broxbourne agrees. Since I spoke out—it was not an easy thing to do; but, in hindsight, the right thing to do—I have been overwhelmed by the support I have received not just from colleagues throughout the House but from people elsewhere. To any people sitting at home watching today’s debate who are suffering from the loneliness, agonies and dark places to which depression takes them, I say that they are likely to be surprised at the response they would get—from colleagues, families and friends—if they opened up about their problems. I understand that this is difficult to do when people are in the depths of depression, which is a very private thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, people often feel ashamed, but they should not be afraid and they should talk about it. If they opened up, I think they would be very surprised at the support they receive from a lot of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I, too, welcome the report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Will the hon. Lady also recognise the work that I and my predecessors as Minister for veterans did in the last Labour Government to advance the cause of veterans’ mental health?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is correct and I certainly recognise that work. Today is a day for recognising the work of successive Governments in many spheres of policy and human sympathy.

Turning back to today’s debate, tackling stigma and discrimination is at the heart of the Government’s mental health strategy. I join all Members here today, who have said many times that it cannot be right in the 21st century for somebody to be automatically expelled from this place because they have had a mental health illness. That sends out entirely the wrong message: that if one has mental health problems, one’s contribution is not welcome in public life. That has applied not only to the House of Commons, but to juries and directorships. In February last year, the Government announced that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. This Bill is that vehicle, and we are glad to see that issue linked to similar amendments on company directors and jurors.

This issue goes well beyond the business of government and opposition. Shifting public attitudes and behaviour requires a major and substantial social movement. The Government are doing their bit within that. February last year saw the publication of the Government’s strategy on mental health entitled, “No health without mental health”. The strategy recognised that mental health is central to our quality of life and to our economic success, individually and collectively. It is interdependent with the success that any Government might hope for in improving training, education and employment, and in tackling the persistent problems that scar our society, from homelessness through to violence, substance abuse and other forms of crime.

The title of the strategy, “No health without mental health”, captures our ambition to mainstream mental health in this country. That concept has been referred to many times today. The Government expect parity of esteem between physical and mental health services. I know, from the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, that the Opposition also want that.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is, once more, absolutely correct. In this arena, as in so many others, it is vital for the Government to work with the private sector, the voluntary sector and anybody in any capacity to achieve our aims. We are talking about broad-scale cultural change. We need the private sector, whether in a macho or non-macho environment, to stand up and say that it cares about mental health and wants people to be well supported. I want that to happen in all walks of life.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I note what the Minister says about mental health being at the heart of Government policy. I know that she is new in her post, but I ask her to have urgent discussions with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the tests by Atos that many of our constituents are facing. People who are affected by mental health issues, in particular, are having a very difficult time and there are some grave injustices that need to be put right.

[Miss Smith]

I recognise the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises, which he also mentioned earlier. I do not think that today is the right time for me to go into that matter in detail; the cross-party consensus might be affected if I did. We do need to get that process right, as we need to get right many processes of administration and welfare, in its broadest sense, across government. I am sure that my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health will have heard his plea. As a member of the Government, I certainly want us to get that process right, and I will work with colleagues to achieve that.

To build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we need to work with partners on the mental health strategy. It is not possible for the Government to say, “It shall be so.” We need to ensure that the right outcomes are delivered locally and are driven by good evidence. We must cast the net wide to do that. The challenges are enormous and extremely difficult. That can be seen, on an individual level, when we have conversations on this matter in our constituency surgeries. However, the rewards of getting this right are vast. That is part of the point of today’s debate.

It is often quoted that at least one in four of us will experience mental health problems at some point in our life. What is less often quoted is that about half of people with a lifetime mental health problem experience their first symptoms by the age of 14. That is a startling statistic among the sea of statistics in this debate. By promoting good mental health across society and by intervening early, particularly in the crucial childhood and teenage years, we can help to prevent mental illness from developing and mitigate its effects when it does. Only a sustained approach across the course of life will equip us to meet the enormous social, economic and environmental challenges, and to deliver the benefits to the people who need them, which is why we are here today.

When mental health services work well, they work well with the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector, and they help people to overcome disadvantage and to fulfil their potential. Any action on mental health, from a Government or otherwise, is not only a mental health strategy but a social justice strategy. I know that that is what all of us here today stand for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend’s attitude to the Whips Office is well documented and understood in the House. I pay tribute to him for his independence of spirit and his tenacity in pursuing not only mental health issues but a range of others, and for turning his face against the establishment whenever possible. If I may be so cheeky, I endorse his request for that particular member of the Whips Office to be on the Committee. It may be well without my powers to do so—I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or powers greater than any of us, will advise me about that shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has campaigned tirelessly on the matter and deserves recognition for doing so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I also request that when the Bill goes into Committee, we have a Health Minister dealing with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I would like to say a few words to sum up the debate. First, I welcome to the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is a good friend. When he arrived, he told me that he had been following proceedings closely, and I asked whether he had also been following them with approval. As he correctly pointed out, if it had been with disapproval, he would have been here talking for two and a half hours.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made an encouragingly brief speech, at least from my point of view. If my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has been following proceedings—I am sure the duty Whip will have noted this—he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North cannot find his way into the Chamber without his contact lenses. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for their contributions. All the speeches were excellent, and I believe that today’s debate has shown the House at its best.

Due to the changes in the rules and proceedings of the House, not only have I listened to the speeches, but I have followed the reaction to our debate on social media. What has happened in the Chamber means a lot to a great many people and I may well get in touch with hon. Members who have spoken to ask whether they would like to serve on the Committee.

I thank the two Front-Bench speakers, and in particular I echo the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about dementia. I lost my father to Alzheimer’s disease, and although Governments of both colours have made real strides in recent years, we still need to do a lot more to tackle that issue. My hon. Friend the Minister is new to her brief, but she showed a good grasp of all the issues the debate covers. To reassure the hon. Member for North Durham, it was good to see a Health Minister and a Justice Minister on the Front Bench earlier in the debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My only concern is that the Cabinet Office Minister said that the Bill has the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister, and his recent track record of getting legislation through is not very good.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into the debate on House of Lords reform, on which not necessarily all my colleagues agree with my views, but I will not return to it.

I should like to emphasise a few points from the debate. First, there is a consensus in the House that changing the law in and of itself does not change society overnight, but it does send a clear signal. Such changes have happened in my adult lifetime. When I was a child, an Asian family tried to buy a house in our road—they would have been the first Asian family to do so. Disgustingly, some of the people on our road tried to persuade the family who were considering selling the house not to sell to an Asian family. When that barrier was broken and that first Asian family moved into the road, people found that they were normal, decent people, and the problem went away overnight. Attitudes on race have changed a great deal, although not enough.

I also recall with great shame my teenage attitudes on sexuality—attitudes of which I am not proud. Attitudes in society to sexuality have also changed a great deal, and we need to change attitudes to mental health. When I was growing up, my perception was that mental health problems affected very few people. As I said, two of my close personal friends over the past 20 years have been affected by mental health conditions. I now see how many people are affected by it, because that includes their friends and family. It is not a case of people either having a mental condition or being perfectly healthy; there is a continuum.

Secondly, the hon. Member for North Durham paid tribute to a number of public figures who have been open about their conditions. He mentioned Alastair Campbell, the former Prime Minister’s press secretary, who has spoken out repeatedly—he is very brave to have done so given the high profile role he had. I should like to mention a sporting figure, Marcus Trescothick, who has shown incredible courage. I have read his autobiography, which is an extremely moving account of his experiences. We have debates on mental health in the House, but it also means a great deal when those who have a high profile in other spheres of public life take the decision to talk openly and honestly about their experiences.

Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman said, people need to tell those close to them about their condition, but the reaction they get might not be what they expect. I have been on a variety of TV and radio shows to talk about and promote the Bill. I will never forget a phone-in on Iain Dale’s show on London’s Biggest Conversation. A number of calls we took were from people suffering from profound depression and other mental health conditions. One caller could not believe that any of the people in his life would want anything more to do with him if he explained to them how he was feeling. My message, as the friend of two people who have mental health conditions, was that friends will want to know and to provide care and support. If they do not want to do so, they are not proper friends. I therefore conclude, as the hon. Gentleman did, by saying that people who are suffering should know that those who care enough will want to know and to provide help and support.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have listened to our proceedings. I very much hope the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, the latest figures taken last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicate a sharp increase to 75% of service personnel now registered to vote. That is up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the efforts made by the previous Government to encourage servicemen and women to register to vote. What he should be looking at, however, is whether those people could vote by internet. Most have access to it—at Camp Bastion and other bases around the world—so this would increase participation.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is always worth looking to see whether we could use or deploy e-voting. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it poses some serious security issues. It has been looked at in the past and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but most people who have looked at internet voting feel that there is a real issue about whether it can be done in a secure and safe way. As I say, we will continue to look at it.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I should like to start by agreeing with what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said about the role that Ann Abraham has played as parliamentary ombudsman. As Members of Parliament, many of us will have referred cases relating to the Child Support Agency and tax credits to her. She and her staff have dealt with those cases very efficiently and ensured that those people, who had had awful experiences at the hands of the system, got some redress. I should also like to welcome the appointment of Dame Julie Mellor to the post. She has considerable experience in the public and private sectors, and her enthusiasm for the role was evident during her interview with the Public Administration Committee.

The Government have not handled the issue of remuneration well. With their spin agenda and attempt to translate sound bites into policy, they do not understand one thing about the parliamentary ombudsman. There seems to be a difference between what the sound bite element in the Conservative party comes up with and putting things into practice. They are creating long-term problems for the Government in respect of the parliamentary ombudsman’s position. Her decisions, which will often criticise Departments for their dealings with our constituents, should be independent of the Government and this House.

It is in our interests as Members of Parliament to ensure that the ombudsman is as independent as possible. However, I do not think it is possible for her to be independent when she has to negotiate her own pay with the Government. I am not suggesting for one moment that Dame Julie Mellor is going to be influenced by money; clearly, as has already been said—by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I believe—she took a pay cut to do the job in question. We hear the rhetoric about being on a par with the Prime Minister’s salary, but no policy decisions have been made on that and no evidence has been provided on why the benchmark for senior positions should be the Prime Minister’s salary.

Since I have been in the House—the last Labour Government might have been as guilty as this one—independent bodies have been asked to decide on remuneration, but when Governments did not like the outcome, they changed it or argued against it. That might be justifiable when it comes to MPs’ pay, which we put out to an independent body. The first thing the Government did was to stop us taking the increase, which was to be over many years, taking our pay further and further down. There is a big difference between that and the ombudsman, who has to be seen to be independent from the Government. It is not acceptable for the Government or Executive to be able to exert any levers over the ombudsman.

There is a lot of inconsistency in what has been done. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex raised the issue of the Comptroller and Auditor General—another post that should be independent of the Government—but his salary range goes from £210,000 to £214,999. The point made by the hon. Member for Dover is right: with a link to a High Court judge, it is the independence of the person that counts. Controlling things in the way the Government have done—to be honest, I do not think they have done it intentionally; it is just that the soundbites have got the better of them—shows that they have not thought this through. If we are to have this nonsense whereby the Prime Minister’s pay is the benchmark, I ask the Minister to provide at least some justification of why and how it is formulated.

It is important to understand the history of the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. The Committee’s report was good both in questioning why things had been changed and in saying that the previous situation, although it had arisen largely as a result of tradition, was at least a justifiable way of determining the individuals’ pay.

Schedule 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 says that where a person holds the office of parliamentary ombudsman and the office of the health service ombudsman, they are entitled to draw a

“salary pertaining to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner.”

Section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967 sets out the salary provisions for the parliamentary ombudsman, and section 2(1) states:

“There shall be paid to the holder of the office of Commissioner the same salary as if he were employed in the civil service of the State in such appointment as the House”

may resolve from time to time. The Act states that, in the absence of a resolution passed by the House, the salary payable to the ombudsman

“shall be the same salary as if he were employed…as a Permanent Secretary.”

Over time, the way in which civil servants are remunerated has changed. The current annual salary of permanent secretaries ranges from £140,000 to £239,999. There is also the bonus culture, of which, as a former trade union official, I am not in favour. To give the impression that civil servants’ pay is being kept down, the basic salary is kept down but bonuses are paid as well. Civil servants may be on the lowest scale of £140,000 a year, but by the time they have received their bonuses—and various other payments—they are earning considerably more.

The salary of the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service ranges from £235,000 to £239,999. The salary of the chief executive of the national health service ranges from £210,000 to £214,999. The annual salaries of the permanent secretaries of the Departments that are responsible for most complaints to the ombudsman range from £170,000 to £174,99 and from £180,000 to £184,999.

It will be asked why that matters. I believe that it matters because of the status of the ombudsman herself. That can best be explained by means of an exchange of letters between the present ombudsman, Ann Abraham, and the Prime Minister, which revealed that the current salary was analogous to that of a High Court judge in salary group 4, which is £172,753. As the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, we are asking such people to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I think it important that they not only retain their status but cannot be influenced by Government.

In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 11 April 2011, Ann Abraham wrote:

“The existing arrangement provides an objective and effective mechanism for determining the Ombudsman’s salary, and any increases to it. It gives Parliament assurance that an Officer of the House is being appropriately remunerated and it provides clarity and certainty for the Ombudsman. It enables Government to reject out of hand any suggestion that Ministers or officials are applying undue pressure or offering inappropriate rewards to the Ombudsman.”

She went on to object to the salary bands proposed by the Government.

I think that it was right to link the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, because it meant that the ombudsman, either on appointment or each year, would not interfere with, or have some influence over, his or her pay, and it removed the danger, which may be posed by the salaries of the many civil servants who earn much more than the ombudsman does now, that the person concerned would be influenced by his or her salary level. Continuing to do that would also dispense with the nonsense that if we are not careful—I will say more about this in relation to the motion concerning the increase in the salary of the new occupant of the post—it will be necessary to negotiate every time there is a new Government, or if the salary becomes pegged below its present level when the economy becomes buoyant in the next few years and pay restraint is removed.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and valid point, but MPs, too, have to hold to account people who are earning a lot more money than them. Is there not a correlation between that point and the argument he is making?

[Mr Jones]

There is—and quite rightly. Because of previous Governments’ and this Government’s pegging of MPs’ pay, many people, even some quite low-level local government workers, are earning considerably more than us. In terms of the process that we are addressing however, it is important that the ombudsman is independent of, and cannot be influenced by, Government. We have a slightly different relationship with the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

These measures were all brought in on the basis of pay restraint. A lot has been said about trying to cut senior salaries. I have already mentioned the Auditor General’s pay, and there seems to be some inconsistency across Government about where this restraint should apply. If we are going to make exceptions, I cannot see why things were changed here, as opposed to, say, for Bernard Gray who was appointed Chief of Defence Materiel at the Ministry of Defence by this Government on a salary of £250,000 a year, plus a potential bonus of £30,000. I know that that is a very important job; it delivers equipment to our armed forces. I have no objections to Bernard, either; I know him well, and he is a very fine individual. However, if the decision was taken to break the principle of the Prime Minister’s salary being the ceiling in that case, I do not understand why the Government have intervened in that way in this other case.

The Prime Minister’s letter of 21 June reveals a lot about the attitude to pay restraint policy. I do not think he has understood the process. What we are doing here is going away from quite a well-thought-out system to one that has now brought into doubt whether not only current Ministers and Governments, but others too, could influence these areas in future.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he served as a Minister, civil servants received performance-related pay and quite substantial salaries. Indeed, larger salaries were probably offered to public officials than the current Government are offering. I am therefore not quite sure what his complaint is. Does he now recognise that the Government have conceded the principle of what he is arguing in the wording of their motion, in that in future the salary will be agreed between whoever holds my office of Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and whoever is Prime Minister

“in advance of the recruitment process”

starting, so there will be stability in the salary at the outset of the recruitment process? I am therefore not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is arguing with the Government about now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has not won a great victory here, because he has no powers of determination now in respect of the existing salary, unless he is going to be able to go back and negotiate—be the shop steward—on behalf of the ombudsman each year to increase her salary. A mechanism would be better.

What is the difference between this instance and the cases of other individuals—such as the MOD example that has been given—in terms of the pay restraint policy that the Government are introducing? Another problem is where to start in terms of the salary band. As the motion says, the individual would get an increase, but that will be forgone at the moment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should have come back to the House of Commons, with the new ombudsman having negotiated and agreed her salary at the current level, demanding that the House of Commons vote for a higher salary than she has agreed? In these straitened times I think that the British public would have found that difficult to understand. Starting from now, we have come up with a much better solution to sort this out for the future without embroiling the new ombudsman in a silly controversy that would have distracted from the seriousness of her office.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government there was a lack of ability to check pay and keep it to the correct level. As a matter of policy, it is right, in general, that officials should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the failure and misunderstanding of the policy in this particular case relates to the fact that the ombudsman’s role is akin to that of a High Court judge, and her office means that she should be treated in the same manner as a High Court judge. That is what I hope Ministers will consider, and will perhaps reflect upon and act upon.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he is living in hope if he thinks that any future Government are suddenly going to throw money at individuals once the salary has been set; he is being a bit naive to say the least. He makes an interesting point about the figure of £142,500. The policy is that nobody should earn more than that. Why? Where has that come from? We know where it came from. It came from the soundbite machine at the general election, from this Government and from a Prime Minister who does not need the salary in any case, because he has independent wealth. If someone could argue that that was the proper level for the job, that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. However, no evidence is being put forward to support that figure of £142,500. That is an absolute fortune, and most of my constituents could only dream of earning anything like that, even in 10 years, let alone in one year. None the less, I would have more respect for the Government’s approach if there were an evidence base to suggest that that figure was the norm, rather than people plucking it out of thin air and then trying to give an impression that it is the norm and capping the pay of the ombudsman—the one post that it should not have been applied to—while having different arrangements for other positions, such as the MOD example that I gave, and others.

I opposed bonuses when I was a trade union official, and the hon. Gentleman is right about our approach. The last Government used them all the time; we tried to say that we were keeping civil service pay down but we were paying bonuses instead. I was always against bonuses because they do not accrue in terms of pensionable entitlements. Let us be honest and say that the Government should try to get away from this whole idea.

The Government have put forward the same argument in respect of local government. The idea that cutting the salary of the chief executive of Durham county council by £5,000 a year or £10,000 a year will actually make a difference in delivering £140 million-worth of cuts over the next three years is completely bonkers. It is nice for the newspapers and it is a nice soundbite at elections, but it does not do the job. What we need in all these situations, as we need in any organisation, is well-thought-out remuneration structures. I am not happy about the cosy relationship between the Chair of the Committee and the Prime Minister in determining the salary of this individual. What the Committee should have proposed are the proper, thought-out, independent salary review processes that we need. As I said before, all Governments try to ignore them when they do not quite fit what they are arguing for, but that is what we need in this case.

The Government have done the ombudsman a huge disservice by intervening in such a way. I feel sorry that she is now lumbered not only with this salary but with a feeling that she somehow has to negotiate her own salary. The Committee did not pull its punches. It said:

“We believe that this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”

One of the many things about the Government that concern me is the fact that they are completely ignoring processes in devising any type of policy. That leads not only to inconsistencies but to changes that will have an effect, over time, on how the ombudsman service is seen.

My final point concerns the motion. We will agree a salary of £152,000, which the motion says is

“within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries”.

It is and, as I have already demonstrated, it is not. There are some who are on possibly £100,000 more than that and who are eligible, as the ombudsman is not, to receive annual bonuses. The hon. Member for Dover is right. On some occasions in the Ministry of Defence, I could never quite work out which targets some people got bonuses for meeting. Bonuses were used as a way of avoiding giving pay increases.

The motion says that the salary should be subject to

“any relevant increase…recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and…after the end of the current…freeze, 1% annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and that the House considers

“that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner…should be agreed by the Prime Minister”.

That is fine for the future, but why 1%? What is that figure based on? Trying to do something at the end is not very satisfactory. Although the motion will be passed tonight, the Government have a lot of questions to answer about why they have intervened in such a way.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

We rather agree with what my right hon. Friend says. There is concern that a whole new apparatus and bureaucracy should not be set up, with all the associated costs, which the previous Government’s plans would have entailed. However, we understand the concern that not proceeding with the establishment of a chief coroner would look insensitive, and would perhaps be insensitive in the circumstances. I will say a word later about the detail of our plans in respect of that office.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

What has changed from when the Minister was in opposition, when he voted for the chief coroner and his party’s Front-Benchers spoke in favour of it in Committee? The Minister spoke about cost and there is an issue about cost. Why has he not yet published what savings will be made by not having a chief coroner? If, as he recognises, certain functions have to be carried out in the Ministry of Justice, at what cost will those functions be carried out?

[Mr Maude]

It will cost very much less. The set-up costs for the office of the chief coroner, as planned under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, would have been £10.9 million and there would have been running costs of £6.6 million a year. I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what has changed. A Government have come to office and inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. We had to take urgent steps to control and eradicate the deficit. As a result of that, he will be glad to know, despite having a budget deficit roughly the same size as that of Greece, we now enjoy interest rates roughly the same as Germany’s.

[Mr Jones]

The Conservative central office spin is wearing a bit thin. Will the Minister break down the costs? The other place was disputing the one-off set-up cost. Included in the so-called £6 million a year is nearly £1 million for contingency, which is 20% of the supposed running costs. Would it not help to justify his arguments if a detailed breakdown was printed, which the Ministry of Justice has signally failed to do and he has not done today?

[Mr Maude]

I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. There will be plenty of opportunities, such as at Question Time once a month, for the hon. Gentleman to ask those questions of Ministers at the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Jones]

You don’t know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I really do need to make progress. A great many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Our first test of a body was the existential test—does its function need to be carried out at all? If, as in most cases, the body’s functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether the functions should be carried out independently. We had three tests. If a body carries out a highly technical activity, if it is required to be politically impartial or if it needs to be able to act independently to establish or measure facts, it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial or other democratic accountability. That is clearly the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility, Ofgem and many others.

Any body that does not meet any of those tests will either be brought back into a Department, where it can be held accountable to the House through a Minister, or devolved to local authorities. In both cases there will be democratic accountability. Or in some cases, a body’s functions could be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sector. We went through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review.

The first task was simply to establish how many quangos there were and what they did. It may sound absurd, but it was and remains incredibly difficult to get firm information on that. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are many different types of quango with different statuses. The official list of non-departmental public bodies contains 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies, and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental executive agencies were not within the review’s scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.

At the end of that review, I announced our proposals to the House on 14 October last year. They were that 481 of the bodies should be substantially reformed, including 192 abolished entirely and a further 118 merged. Since that announcement we have concluded consideration of a number of other bodies, and I can tell the House that the current total is that 495 bodies will be reformed, including 200 abolished and 120 others merged into 59 successor bodies. We have moved quickly to implement that programme, and I am pleased to tell the House that 45 bodies had been abolished by the end of April this year. Overall, we expect to make administrative savings—I stress that they are administrative—of £2.6 billion from public bodies over the spending review period. That money will be better spent on protecting public sector jobs and on front-line services.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Maude]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make progress. I have given way a great deal, and I do not want this speech to go on too long. I am sure that is a sentiment that the House will support.

I note that the previous Government’s intention, set out in 2009, was to abolish 120 bodies, saving the conveniently round sum of £500 million. Yet in the six months following that announcement, they did not even manage to abolish half of them—a clear demonstration that, as ever, they had a better knack for the headline than for the hard work of implementing what had been promised.

Where public bodies have been retained, they will be subject to a process of rigorous triennial review, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, that the need is there, and that the justification for them remaining independent is still valid. Far too often, bodies have been created and left well beyond the time when they are needed, partly because there has been no means to reform or disband them—any such change would have required primary legislation, time for which is, as we know, at a premium in the House.

The Government’s response to the Select Committee on Public Administration report outlined the principles of that review process, and I look forward to giving further details to the House in due course. The review process for individual bodies will be led by the responsible Minister in each case, and co-ordinated and supported by the Cabinet Office.

The House will be aware that the Bill was brought from another place, where it has received substantial scrutiny, resulting in a number of important amendments. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in this process, which has helped the Government to produce an even more coherent and well-structured Bill—it was fairly coherent and well-structured to begin with. I hope that it will command the support of this House and the confidence of the public. I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach for his skilful stewardship of the Bill in the other place.

The Bill is centred on a series of order-making powers that enable Ministers to make changes to public bodies through secondary legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament. That mechanism creates a coherent and efficient procedure for reform, while properly giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise both the principle and the detail of the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

I do not necessarily accept that that was the largest reduction. However, devolution was one of the most significant policies introduced—and proudly so—by the Labour Government, and of course previously reserved powers were then devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

A 20% reduction would have saved £500 million from next year. The Minister jibbed at that, but we viewed the process of altering, closing down and merging public bodies as one that should take place systematically over time. Those £500 million of savings would have been realised by next year.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of what is being proposed is window dressing, in the sense that even closing down bodies such as the Audit Commission will cost some £400 million in pension liabilities and winding up other assets? When we look at some of those organisations in detail, we see that the payback period might not come for, say, 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I shall confine my remarks to the proposed emasculation of the office of the chief coroner. In the three years during which I had the honour to serve as both Minister of State for the Armed Forces and then Secretary of State for Defence, a high priority for me and the entire ministerial team was to improve the service we gave to the bereaved of our fallen. We did so not to waste public money, but because it was absolutely necessary and absolutely deserved.

Our proposals were supported by Members on both sides of the House. We created the Defence Inquests Unit to examine, chase and dig out problems within the Ministry of Defence and the individual armed forces themselves, and to make certain that failings were reported to Ministers so that progress could be made. In partnership with the Royal British Legion, we created the defence advisory service, which has just completed its first year of operation and is highly respected by those who, sadly, have to use its services.

During the years I served as a Defence Minister, I read many transcripts and followed many inquests, and I have to say to the Government and the entire House that there are wide variations in both the manner and quality of coronial inquests. From time to time—too often, I am afraid—they let down our armed forces and the bereaved. I would single out for particular praise Mr Masters, the Trowbridge coroner, who was unsurpassable in his dedication and ability. He certainly exposed failings within the MOD with regard to the XV179 Hercules crash, when we lost 10 personnel. We also lost 14 in the XV230 Nimrod crash, and we had to employ the services of Mr Haddon-Cave to get to the bottom of the problems. That was not a waste of money; it was an absolute necessity that that inquiry was carried out.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend and I had dealings with some of the families of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does he agree that what they want are inquiries that are not only thorough but conducted in a timely fashion, and that they also want the role of the chief coroner to be independent of the Ministry of Justice, not part of it?

[Mr Ainsworth]

Independence is absolutely essential, and if inquests are not carried out in a timely fashion, but instead unnecessary delay is caused, that leads to huge distress. Most important, however, is the quality of the investigation, because when people have lost their loved ones they want to know that lessons are being learned and others will not unnecessarily be subject to the same error that caused their loved one to lose their life.

From my experiences in this area, this is what I would say, with the greatest of respect, to the Government: Ministers cannot advise or train or lead an independent coronial service. It is preposterous for the Government to suggest that the functions of the office of the chief coroner should be rolled into some ministerial committee. They will not con the Royal British Legion in that regard.

In the course of my responsibilities, I met many bereaved families, who went through their bereavement with great dignity and very ably dealt with the problems they faced. None were more impressive than Mr and Mrs Dicketts—Priscilla and Robert. Robert Dicketts spoke in this House a few months ago, and he recognised the improvements that had been made, but he also said:

“However, until there is a Chief Coroner, through whom good practice can be driven through the coronial system, it is likely bereaved Armed Forces families will have to go through a system which is often inconsistent and desperately in need of modernisation.”

Sooner or later, Ministers will listen to the voice of the Royal British Legion and of people such as Robert Dicketts, and they will drop their proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

No, I think it will make them much worse. That sense of accountability, which we do not have at the moment, would arguably be lost for ever.

Is the contrast I just mentioned a question of resources, particularly at a time of local authority cuts? Is it a question of competency? Is it a question of needing additional training? We do not know, because the whole process is opaque and shrouded in mystery. In the modern age, that is not good enough. Why can families in Teesside who have suffered through the death of a loved one not have some help and support and see the efficient and swift conclusion of the inquest? That is the very least that they deserve.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that because we will not have a chief coroner who can improve standards, we will get more appeals? The only way to go forward at the moment is a judicial review, so will the cost of dealing with such cases not increase rather than decrease?

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree. It will not be value for money for the public purse. There will be additional costs, and one of the virtues of a chief coroner’s office would be to help provide an overview of work allocation. I think the establishment of a chief coroner could provide a more rational and therefore more efficient allocation of work, perhaps through the creation of specialist coroners who could provide specific expertise. We could save money and provide a better service for bereaved families.

It is impossible, or difficult at the very least, for Members of this House to hold coroners to account for their performance. I recently asked a parliamentary question to the Lord Chancellor about the grounds on which an individual holding the post of coroner can be removed from that office, only to be told by the Minister that the only ground for removal was personal misconduct or behaviour, but the Minister could not provide a definitive list of possible offences. The Lord Chancellor can remove a coroner only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. There is simply no transparency in the matter and no criteria by which the House or the public can hold a local coroner to account and determine whether he or she is providing an unsatisfactory service and should be removed. In this day and age—particularly when, as we have heard from the Royal British Legion, servicemen and women are falling for our country—bereaved families in Teesside and elsewhere deserve better. They deserve greater clarity and transparency.

I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the matter of poor time scales in the Teesside district and I am awaiting a response, but let me reiterate in conclusion that families in Teesside deserve to see inquests into the deaths of loved ones concluded with sympathy, professionalism and swiftness. They are not getting that at the moment and are not being provided with an adequate explanation on why and how matters will be improved. The Bill does not help; in fact, it makes things worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In December, when this matter was debated in the other place, Lord Lester made the important point that unless there is a properly independent system of investigation of deaths, the Government cannot be confident about satisfying their article 2 obligations on the investigation of deaths. That is particularly relevant in relation to deaths in prison and police custody.

In March 2004, I set out proposals for reform in which the bereaved and their families were to be placed at the heart of the system. Ministers should be reminded of the importance of putting those people at the heart of the system. Under the proposals, a chief coroner was to be appointed with complete judicial independence to lead a streamlined and modernised service, to ensure training and high standards and to carry responsibility for undertaking appeals and presiding over more complex inquests. Eventually, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted those proposals. I pay tribute to Bridget Prentice—a good friend and very able Minister—who with characteristic energy and determination turned the countless words of the public inquiries, reviews and consultations into legislation, which was passed with the support of all parties in the House, including those that now turn their backs on it.

The need for a chief coroner is even greater now, with inquests becoming ever more complex and high profile. Only recently, we have had the Tomlinson and 7/7 inquests—cases in point. Another change since 2003, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) referred to in his very powerful speech, has been the experience of bereaved families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their experience screams out for a system that is sympathetic, that understands the circumstances they face and that has their confidence.

The Government’s arguments about costs do not hold water and cannot be justified. Ministers should not simply accept the figures in the impact assessment but should challenge them. There is not one Member of this House who does not believe that the set-up and running costs of the office of the chief coroner could not be reduced. It is the business of Ministers to get those costs down, not to hide behind what was in the impact assessment. Of course, they are not counting the costs of failing to implement the reforms that were agreed in the last Parliament, such as the £500,000 or more that is spent every year on judicial reviews—not to mention the costs that will be incurred by transferring some of the functions of the office of the chief coroner to the Lord Chief Justice. Those matters will still need to be overseen by judges, and judges do not come for nothing—they cost money. Those costs still are not being counted.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is it not remarkable that although the Government have announced that they will transfer the powers of the chief coroner to the Ministry of Justice and others, they have not yet laid out what that will cost to administer?

[Paul Goggins]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It really is a shabby case. The Government are relying on old figures, which have not been challenged, and bringing forward proposals that have absolutely no work behind them whatever. My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point.

In failing to follow through on these reforms, the Government are not considering the human and health costs that will be incurred by our not learning the lessons of unfortunate and tragic deaths—information that could help to prevent deaths in future. Ministers have no proposals to monitor timeliness or to introduce an appeals system. Other hon. Members have made the point about the importance of that issue.

What the Government are doing to the office of the chief coroner is a betrayal. If they proceed with this reform they will be turning their back on six or seven years’ worth of patient consultation and policy development, which led to legislation that was agreed by all parties in the House. They will be turning their back on Tom Luce, Dame Janet Smith, the families of the victims of Harold Shipman and the bereaved families of the service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be turning their back on many vulnerable people who have had to pick their way through our outdated coronial system. But the Government still have a chance: they have the rest of this evening and Committee proceedings finally to do the right thing and drop these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

It is unlikely that Mr Blair and I would agree on the nature of reforms, but this legislation paves the way for Ministers to make necessary changes with appropriate scrutiny—without the delay that Mr Blair talked about—by giving them the mechanisms to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will have a soft spot for one or two of the bodies listed in the schedules, despite wanting to see the reform of such public bodies. We might even be drawn into trying to defend those institutions. Such an approach would be fair if schedule 7 of the original Bill remained and if the amendments made in the other place had not been accepted by Ministers. To give the Government credit, they have sought to listen to concerns and have accepted the threat that schedule 7 posed to lack of scrutiny. However, there must always be a balance between the Government having their way and the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny. The original schedule 7 did not necessarily achieve the equilibrium that we are looking for; I am pleased that it has been removed.

It is hard to believe that the quango state had grown to 901 bodies under the previous Administration. In their desire to manage controversies, a new agency would often be established to show that something was being done. Some might even argue that the agencies were useful bodies to which to retire former colleagues. The case for winding up or reorganising their numbers and purposes is overwhelming.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the worst culprit for packing quangos was the previous Conservative Government. If he cares to do his homework, he will find that one quango we invented, with which I have had a few run-ins, is the independent Appointments Commission. It took out of politicians’ hands altogether the appointment of people to quango boards.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was the previous Conservative Government who cleaned up the appointments process to ensure that there was transparency in selection. I point to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority as one of the worst examples of a Government merely reacting to public concerns without thinking through the consequences in a proper, deliberate way; it has given rise to many complaints from this House, and there is also the issue of the additional costs of that agency.

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman will cite examples, I wish he would do his homework. IPSA was supported by Members in all parts of the House; the strongest advocate for it was the current Prime Minister.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I accept the point about all-party support, but the point is the knee-jerk reaction of the Prime Minister of the day, who took the decision without providing for appropriate scrutiny. The proposal was rushed through the House without the then Opposition having an opportunity to make their case. I need to make progress, because of the time. I want to come on to some of the points made earlier.

A word of caution: merely merging individual bodies with a Government Department is not necessarily the right thing to do. There must be reform and enhancement. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for talking about the need for reform when he opened the debate. I speak from experience of the so-called bonfire of the quangos in Wales some years ago. For purely political reasons, the Welsh Assembly Government abolished the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board, among many other organisations. That was welcomed by Labour, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat politicians at the time. The claim was that there would be better democratic accountability, but the reality was very different. Simply merging the organisations without reform meant that agency staff became civil servants, and the expertise gained over many years was stifled by the bureaucracy of the civil service. Those events started almost seven years ago to this day, and those very people who were the strongest cheerleaders for the winding up of those bodies are now calling for their re-establishment.

I am certainly not opposed to the lists in the schedules, or to the need for Ministers to reform and reorganise. I strongly agree with the objectives of the legislation, but caution against winding up for winding up’s sake. I would also underline the need to make reform part of the process. There must be a wider reforming agenda to improve services.

In the final couple of minutes available to me, I want to talk about S4C. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a pretty disingenuous contribution. To talk about a 96% cut to funding certainly is not accurate. S4C will receive a 6% funding cut per annum over the next four years. That is very different from the sort of figures that she talked about. Furthermore, all the demands made by supporters of S4C have been met by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I shall go through the primary ones in turn. The first was about the importance of long-term funding. I was delighted that in the written ministerial statement published on Monday, the Government said:

“The Government are committed to ensuring that S4C will be funded at a level sufficient to ensure that it can fulfil its statutory remit and we intend to put this expectation on the statute book so that it is a legal requirement.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 2-3 WS.]

Certainly, that issue has been resolved.

Secondly, the need for independence, both operational and editorial, has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Wales. Thirdly, on the issue of the arrangements with the BBC, of course the provisions have to be in the Bill to secure the very independence that we have been talking about, and the long-term funding arrangements for which everyone has called. Those who are critical on the subject of S4C, and the strongest champions of the channel, are not equally critical when it comes to Radio Cymru, for which the BBC is also responsible, so there is significant inconsistency in the argument that is made.

Finally, it is ironic that the retail prices index link was part of the fault. Many S4C Authority members have shown arrogance over the past year; they felt that they had the right to do things irrespective of the attitude of viewers, whose numbers have been falling for the past five years or more. It is time to act, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to return to an issue that has been raised—the role of the chief coroner. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), I congratulate Bridget Prentice, who steered the legislation through when she was the Minister responsible,. She did a fantastic job and deserves credit for it. The chief coroner’s office was going to be created to improve national standards and to monitor compliance with what is, as we have heard, an archaic and shambolic system. It would also have introduced the role of medical examiners, who would be able to scrutinise medical certificates, and ensured, for the first time, a bespoke appeals system to save people the lengthy expense of going through judicial reviews.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, it is important to state how we got to this point—it was not by accident. He referred to the Luce review, which reported on death certificates and improvements in the service. He also mentioned the very important Shipman inquiry chaired by Dame Janet Smith. If we agree to what the Government propose in their amendments to take out what the Lords put into the Bill, we will go against Dame Janet Smith’s recommendation, as stated on page 492 of the report:

“The body which is to provide that leadership and support must be seen to be independent of Government. In my view, it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department.”

However, that is what is being proposed in place of the chief coroner, and that is not acceptable.

The Government have changed their position. Today I looked at the Hansard report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009, when the current Attorney-General said:

“We agree that reform of the coroners’ system is long overdue.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 46.]

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Member for Hornchurch, said:

“We all welcome the establishment of the chief coroner”

and

“the modernisation of the coroner’s powers of…investigation”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 111.]

He said that that was well overdue. In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said:

“Reform is, therefore, long overdue…I welcome the creation of the posts of chief coroner and deputy chief coroner.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 117.]

So what has changed since? The Minister, in opening the debate, said that it was all about money. If it is, then the Government need first to identify the costs of setting up and running the chief coroner’s office. They seem to miss the point regarding taking these functions in house when they say that no cost is involved in that process at all. That is clearly not the case. The figures that have been suggested include about £1 million a year as a contingency—for what, we do not know. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the Government are using this argument about cost. If they are going to make the big mistake of deleting the post of chief coroner, they will have to justify every single penny of costs, and the civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will have to justify every single thing they do in terms of costs.

Clearly, we will not get what Dame Janet wanted, and what the Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats in the previous Parliament wanted, which is an improvement in the coroner service. That is an opportunity missed. We will still be stuck with the system that we have had for many centuries, which is not only not fit for purpose but outdated and bureaucratic. It also leads to delays in the hearing of coroners’ inquests, which is unacceptable.

The Royal British Legion has stated that it does not support this reform and it argues strongly for the role of chief coroner. It is also important to record that the organisation Cardiac Risk in the Young—I chair an all-party group on the issue—is vociferous in arguing that what is needed to improve the coroners service and the inquest service for the families of young people who die of sudden cardiac arrest is the role of the chief coroner.

We need to improve the system and stop the untimely delays for those who die in action serving this country. It is all right for the Government to say that they support the covenant; that needs to be supported in practice by establishing the role of the chief coroner. I agree totally with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) that the Government will be forced to back down on this issue. I suggest that they do it sooner rather than later.

In closing, although I do not usually agree with Viscount Slim, he summed up the issue well in the Lords last week in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, when he said that the deletion of the position of chief coroner is

“mean, short-sighted and rather stupid.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 299.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

This has been a short debate on a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) rightly described as being very significant. It is significant in its potential impact on a large number of organisations, many of which perform significant functions and employ a large number of people. My fellow Hillingdon MP, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), was quite right to remind the House of the impact of the changes on human beings. Let me reassure him that I am extremely happy to meet him and the PCS group to clarify any confusion that might exist in relation to TUPE. I give that undertaking in good faith.

The debate was interesting in that it launched the Labour party’s campaign to “Back the Apple”—this from the party that introduced the cider tax! The irony has been lost on them. More seriously, it is clear that there are still profound concerns about some of the proposals on the table and that there is more need than ever for Ministers’ continued engagement regarding the Bill during its progress through Committee, should it get its Second Reading, and through the consultation processes that will have to flow in anticipation of the orders that will in turn flow from the Bill. Many arguments will be made, won and lost in that process. That is quite clear from the debate.

In the time available I will try to address some of the specific concerns that have been raised, but it is important to register that no one in the debate has, as far as I could tell, argued for the status quo. The case for reform appears to have been won, although, having listened to Opposition Front Benchers I am not entirely convinced. The truth is that when they were in power they were a lot better at moving quangos around than at abolishing them. Frankly, at the end of the Opposition spokesman’s remarks, I was no clearer about what on earth they would do if they were in power. There continues to be a complete fog about that. It is all very well talking about the case for reform, but sometimes one has to get up and do something.

The case for reform was made extremely powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Watford (Richard Harrington). The case was made particularly eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who talked about the need to shine a light of accountability and transparency, with which I entirely agreed. My observation from my constituency is that people are deeply frustrated by how complex and expensive government has become. They would like it to be simplified and for it to be easier to find out who is in charge. They would like us to bear down with much greater discipline on waste and cost inflation, not least on salary inflation. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South West Norfolk.

Given the cluttered and confused landscape that is quangoland, it would have been quite irresponsible for a new Government not to have embarked on a review of public bodies. We believe very strongly that by substantially reducing the number of bodies, returning functions to central Government where appropriate, and establishing a legislative framework for the outcomes of future reviews, the Bill takes a major step towards a simpler, more accountable approach to Government. The Bill will support the delivery of administrative savings from public bodies, as part of the Government’s commitment to delivering the effective, value-for-money systems that taxpayers rightly expect. Those principles should enjoy widespread support across the House, and I am very disappointed by the position of the Opposition in that respect.

There was consensus across the House that the Bill had been improved by the deliberations in the other place; I am happy to confirm that that is our view, too. There were questions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex, for City of Chester, and for Esher and Walton, about the triennial review, which is an important part of the new process that we are setting up. I assure them all that further detail will be forthcoming on how that review will work.

There was very little controversy, as far as I could tell, about the structure of the Bill, now that it has passed through the other place. Where there were concerns, they tended to focus explicitly on the ideas for particular bodies. I should like to focus on those that are clearly more controversial. I start with the office of chief coroner. We heard powerful speeches from the right hon. Members for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and from the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and for North Durham (Mr Jones). I pay particular tribute to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Coventry North East, and for Wythenshawe and Sale East, because they had the benefit of drawing on direct ministerial experience, some of which was clearly very powerful and difficult.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What about me?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman was not bad, either. There are clearly arguments to be made, and won or lost. The Government clearly have to listen very hard, but the point that I would make to Members who have understandable concerns about the proposal is that there is no argument about the need for reform. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, we all recognise that a much better service is required for families. There is a problem around variation in quality; he made that point well. Nor is there any argument about the need for the functions of the chief coroner; the proposal is that they be transferred, not abolished. The question is: can we have reform without the person—or without the person right now, because the Government are retaining some flexibility on that point? The concern is about whether the reforms can be delivered without incurring what, on the face of it, are significant set-up and running costs—costs that were effectively ratified by the previous Government, because they commissioned the impact assessment.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General told us when he opened the debate that the reason behind the decision on the chief coroner’s office was money. Is the Parliamentary Secretary comfortable going against one of the main recommendations made by Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman report—that the coroner’s office be independent of Government?

[Mr Hurd]

Cost is a significant factor in the circumstances that we face, and we should not underestimate its importance as a consideration for the Ministry of Justice. It is committed to reform; the question is: how can those reforms be delivered in the most cost-effective way? It is clear, as I said, that the arguments will have to be made through the processes that lie before us.

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I would add that it is not just about the local media; the BBC in the north-east has taken the approach of doing league tables rather than any analysis of the information. Even though I have tried to FOI the expenses of the journalists on the “Politics Show” in the north-east, the BBC has refused to release them, and I now have an appeal with the Information Commissioner. If this is about public money and transparency, should not other bodies such as the BBC also have their expenses published?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into a much wider debate about public transparency, but this is not the right time for that. He will know that there are ongoing discussions between the BBC and the National Audit Office about various issues, and I am sure that they will carry on. I am not going to take his invitation to dwell on those issues today.

I want to return to the annual review that IPSA undertook. I think it is fair to say that it made some changes to the scheme and has made it better and easier for Members to operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has effectively given us more discretion about judging what things are relevant to our parliamentary duties and carrying out our responsibilities. That then raises some other questions, which is welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who chairs the liaison committee, acknowledged the progress that has been made on office costs and on travel, although he acknowledged that there was work to be done in other areas of expenses. It is worth saying that there has been progress, although I know that many Members think that there has not been enough and needs to be more.

Members referred to value for money, which is specifically mentioned in the motion. It is worth setting out a little more detail. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred to the NAO report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General setting out the details of that. The NAO is going to carry out a study of IPSA, and the report will be produced before the summer recess.

An interesting fact of which Members should be aware is that the NAO is going to survey all serving Members of Parliament asking about their experience of IPSA and the expenses scheme. It is moving quite swiftly on the study. It is going to send out questionnaires this coming Monday—16 May—allowing us a fortnight to respond before the Whit recess, and it has asked for Government support in encouraging Members to participate. I do not think, having listened to the debate, talked to several of my colleagues and heard what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said about his conversations with the parliamentary Labour party, that Members will need much encouragement to send back their responses. They should take this opportunity to focus on how well the scheme is working, including value for money and ease of use, so that the NAO can take that into account.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on his excellent speech and on the way in which he introduced the debate. I hope that he continues throughout his life in Parliament to feel as much affection for all hon. Members as he expressed today, although I doubt that that will continue as time goes on. However, I appreciated the opening words of his speech.

I had my whinge last time round when we had the first debate in Westminster Hall. I also got very angry, and I still feel angry that, because of the activities of a few Members in the past, we have all been smeared. We continue to be smeared by the belief that we are all crooks, and after 26 years in Parliament I resent that immensely. We all found during the general election campaign that whether we had done something or not, we were all considered to be crooks. Someone came up to me during the campaign and shouted, “Thief!” If I had been a man, I would have run after him and punched him in the face, because I feel about this so strongly. I am not a thief and I have never been a thief. I object to Members being considered as thieves, because the vast majority of people in this place are nothing of the sort, and it is not right that we have been smeared by the activities of a few.

A member of my staff uses the online expenses system to fill in the forms on my behalf. I had not thought of the idea of one of my colleagues, who told IPSA that his finger was in plaster and he was unlikely to be taking it out of plaster, which meant that IPSA officials had to go to his office to fill in expense claims on his behalf. I wanted to look at the problems as dispassionately as possible, so I asked my member of staff about his experiences and to outline the difficulties he had encountered. He said:

“Although after the MPs expenses fiasco there was a genuine desire to create a new and more transparent system to pay Members’ expenses, I do not think the system put in place by IPSA is the best alternative”—

he was also aware of the previous system. He continued:

“The new system is in no way more transparent than the system it replaced, the main difference is that rather than submit paper claims Members must now submit them online. It seems as though rather than looking for a simple solution”—

several colleagues have suggested such a solution today—

“(such as daily allowances or issuing credit cards to Members for their expenses) an expensive all consuming bureaucratic monster has been created.”

Several issues have arisen after six months of the new system. Inevitably, Members allow their staff to fill out and submit claims forms on their behalf. The previous system did not allow anyone except the Member to sign the forms before they were submitted, but the new system places a lot of trust in the hands of a non-elected proxy. The way in which the travel card statement is sent to the proxy’s IPSA account, not to Members, is very time consuming and confusing. The Member travel card has the potential to simplify the way in which Members claim, but the way in which it operates only adds to the problems of the online system.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that the new travel card system is far more complicated than the old system? Under the old system, we had a statement once a month that we had to go through to check that the information was correct. We then ticked it and signed it ourselves before sending it back. Under the present system, we have to provide the information in paper form and then put it back online, as well as sending in the individual rail tickets. Frankly, that is complete nonsense.

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very good point.

During the first few months of the new system’s operation, Members faced huge delays in getting any claims reimbursed. They accumulated large amounts of debt at the beginning of a new Parliament, and a great deal of time and manpower has been spent trying to balance the books ever since. This unnecessarily takes time away from other parliamentary duties, as has been pointed out. During the past six months, IPSA has twice lost or not received the receipts we have sent in the post. IPSA is adamant that all claims must be accompanied by original receipts, but no contingency plan has been put in place to deal with lost receipts. The old system allowed Members to send in photocopies of receipts, while we filed the originals for our own records. Members are now at risk if they do not take photocopies of all receipts before sending them to IPSA.

Communicating with or contacting IPSA is not easy. There is only one general phone number and e-mail address for Members to contact. We have all been put on hold for more than 45 minutes while waiting to discuss issues with IPSA staff and, due to a lack of replies, we have all but given up trying to contact IPSA via e-mail.

I am sure that there would have been many more Members here today if they were not still fearful of the press. We all know that whatever we say here today will be picked up and used in one way or another. Some Members who would have liked to be here to make similar points to the ones we are making are not here because of a certain amount of fear. It is ridiculous that elected Members of Parliament, who often have to stand up for their constituents, find it difficult to stand up for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) not only on bringing this debate to the House today but on the considerable amount of hard work he has put in over many months to seek to redress what indubitably has been and remains a wrong? My hon. Friend has studiously given IPSA, perhaps appropriately, until all fools’ day to come back with a better scheme. Personally, I would prefer to see a change now, but I shall support his motion in the Lobby, if necessary, later.

I want to pay tribute to the staff of the former Fees Office, many of whom have been reviled—shamefully, sometimes in this House, but more particularly in the press—because of the systems that had developed. Those staff, known to many of us in previous Parliaments, were in the main diligent, courteous and careful and did a very good job. Some are now working for IPSA, but I happen to know that some of them are acutely disturbed by the climate of mistrust in IPSA that has been inculcated into them and imposed on them from the top. By the top, I mean the chairman and the interim chief executive. Let us now call a spade a spade and understand what we are talking about.

The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said it was up to those of us who have knocked around for a bit to speak up for the newer Members of the House. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am practically halfway through my parliamentary career—[Laughter.] Did I hear somebody say “shame”? On that basis, I believe that some of us have a duty to say things that young men and women who entered this Parliament for the first time in May need to have said for them but do not feel able to say for themselves. There has been a climate of fear and of mistrust. There is a feeling that if we complain our constituents will not understand and the local and national press certainly will not understand. There are some things that we must get on the record.

In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said that he was trying to stimulate a measure in the interests of our constituents and in the interests of saving money. He is absolutely right. The system that has been imposed on us is wasteful, costly and bureaucratic and it is failing. We have to get that right. The interim chief executive of IPSA, in one of his many issued statements, said that

“the core of our mission is to support parliamentary democracy.”

Mr Churchill might have used the phrase “round objects”. I am sorry, I do not accept that. Our job goes to the core of parliamentary democracy, and parliamentary democracy is being interfered with by the scheme that has been imposed on us.

Let us be absolutely clear about this: not just in the last Parliament but probably in the two or three before, things went very badly wrong. Some former Members behaved in a way that can only be described as less than honourable, and we all need to understand that there was, and remains, a need for change. But change for the sake of change, on the basis of “My shirt is hairier than yours”, is not a way of taking the House forward.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked how many Members had been consulted before the new scheme was devised. The answer is none or very few. We have to accept that IPSA found itself faced with a well nigh impossible task, and I do not demur from that at all. It had to try to put together a scheme within the time scale that our Front Benchers on both sides of the House demanded—we need to be clear about where some of the responsibility for that lies. That was very difficult, but having said that, the people at the top of IPSA have chosen—I believe partly through arrogance—to ignore the fundamentals and not to do the groundwork and research necessary to put in place not just a scheme, but a scheme that worked.

I have invited the interim chief executive of IPSA, courteously and on three separate occasions, to visit my parliamentary office. It is located in my constituency, but it is not a constituency office. That is a fundamental difference. I have chosen to locate my entire business in the constituency. I have tried to impress on the interim chief executive the point that if a Member of Parliament has his or her office based within the parliamentary estate, and if all their staff are based there, all their bills for telephone calls, office equipment, heating, lighting, cleaning, office rental, rates, fire precautions—the whole kit and caboodle—are paid for by the House authorities. That represents a difference of about £17,000 a year between that Member and another Member with his or her parliamentary office in the constituency. That means, of course, that the information published today is hopelessly distorted. My telephone bills for my parliamentary office will be much higher than those of colleagues who use the phones here.

The interim chief executive wrote back to me and completely missed the point, saying, “Well, if you’ve got a problem with this, we’re quite prepared to review the amount that you’re allowed.” I do not want the amount that I am allowed reviewed, and I do not want to spend any more money. Over 27 years in this place, I have already subsidised my office costs to the taxpayer to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds, and I have done so uncomplainingly. However, I do not want to be misunderstood by people who have devised a scheme without taking the trouble to get out there, visit offices and really understand what the job of a Member of Parliament is about.

I asked when the interim chief executive had visited a constituency or a parliamentary office in a constituency, how often and where. Hon. Members may be dismayed to learn that the answer, which came after a freedom of information request because I was not initially told, stated that the chief executive’s first visit to any office was on 9 July, the election having been in May. That was to the office of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), where he spent two days. More recently—very recently—the man who told me that it was not possible to visit my office visited South Thanet, which is four miles down the road.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that a good example of IPSA completely misunderstanding how an MP’s office runs was its early diktat that it would pay only 85% of our phone bills, on the basis that the other 15% related to our personal use?

[Mr Gale]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I shall discuss the costs of IPSA now, because I am conscious that a lot of hon. Members wish to speak and I must not take up too much time.

I want to address issues such as IPSA’s extravagance and waste. The office costs issue is important. IPSA’s chief executive says that plenty of people in the public sector pay their bills and then reclaim the money. I am sorry, but I do not believe that IPSA’s chief executive pays any part of the rent for his office in Victoria—or his phone, heating, lighting and cleaning bills—and then claims it back. I therefore asked how much IPSA was spending on that. The rental for those offices, which are not on the parliamentary estate, as the hon. Member for Walsall North said, costs £348,000 a year over the life of the lease.

I am still waiting—IPSA is out of time on this—for a freedom of information follow-up to tell me how much IPSA is spending on business rates, heating, lighting, cleaning, service charges, depreciation and all the other costs. That figure has to be in excess of £500,000. I note that Mr Speaker has said that he wants IPSA’s costs cut to £2 million. If just the building costs £500,000, even before we have put any people in it, and if we now have to pay for the gold key online expenses submissions system, £2 million will not be enough, despite the fact that the old Fees Office did the entire job for that money.

Funding of the online key scheme is discrete; IPSA will not give the answer under freedom of information legislation because the information is commercial in confidence and providing it might prejudice future negotiations. What I can tell the House is that IPSA has entered into a five-year contract. I suspect it has done so at very considerable expense and with no break clause. So if we do revise this scheme, the taxpayers will find themselves paying the bill up to the full five years.

We asked the chief executive what the purpose of all the duplication is. Our staff spend six hours a week online, filling in forms on the screen, item by item and line by line. That is fine, but they then have to print the whole darned lot, back it up with receipts and send it in. IPSA’s chief executive does not consider that to be duplication, but if doing something twice is not duplication, I do not know what is.

Finally, I wish to discuss an issue that has been raised and is of grave concern to new and younger Members, particularly those with young families: the living costs allowed to Members of Parliament to maintain the necessary accommodation—I emphasise the word “necessary”—in the constituency and in London. It appears to have escaped IPSA’s understanding that Members of Parliament do work in the House of Commons and in our constituencies.

I know colleagues in Kent who represent quite large constituencies that have only one station, which is perhaps just within an hour by train from London. We need to understand that that is just under an hour platform to platform, not door to door. They do not receive any London weighting, any London living allowance or any accommodation allowance at all, so they find themselves, having come into this place believing that they have come here to do a job of work on behalf of their constituents, either having to pay to get home late at night or having to travel home before the vote at 10 pm. Where is the sense in that? I do not know of any journey time that starts when the train arrives at the platform and ends when it arrives at the platform at the other end, but takes no account of the time it takes someone to get from their home or office to that platform to wait for the train, to catch the train, to be delayed, to get off at the other end and to get back home or to their place of work. That is arrant nonsense. When I told IPSA that those people were being unfairly treated, I was told:

“IPSA did not consider that eligibility for accommodation could reasonably be decided on the basis on where the MP elected to live. This would have created a perverse incentive for the MP to opt to live further away from Westminster, in order to be eligible for accommodation. The decision was therefore taken on principle that eligibility should depend on the constituency’s proximity to Westminster. It is then down to MPs whether they elect to live close to the station within their constituency which has the fastest links to Westminster”.

In other words, if Members do not like it, they should sell their houses and move closer to the station.

I have been in this place for a long time, and I want to leave it one day knowing that it is in safe hands—the hands of good people who have come here for the right reasons and who want to do the job that they were elected to do. If they are going to be able to do that, they have to have the resources. The people who are denying them those resources are the people who are currently running IPSA. We have two choices. This House—this democracy—will either be the province of the very rich or juvenile anoraks with no experience of life, business or anything at all, or we will sort this problem out. As far as we are concerned, IPSA has until 1 April. It had better get it right.

Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend can be reassured by what I said earlier, which was that pretty much every Member on the Government Benches, from the Prime Minister down, is unhappy about having to implement this judgment. We are going to have to do it, however, but he can take it from the fact that we are not very happy about having to do that, that when deciding on the judgments we need to reach and in bringing our proposals forward, we will take into account everything that he has said.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Two Durham prisons contain 1,700 prisoners, including Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer. In the Minister’s deliberations, will he consider excluding individuals such as Huntley from getting the vote in Durham? Will he also consider the fact that 1,700 prisoners getting the vote in a marginal seat such as City of Durham could sway the outcome of an election?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point, of which the Government are well aware—and these are all exactly the sort of points that we are taking into account as we formulate our proposals.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Wait a minute. That is so for the very simple reason that many people have a visceral hatred of both parties and therefore think, wrongly, that they are voting for another party that will do them some good—we have a different view about that.

I regard this as a lambs-to-the-slaughter Bill—this is why I insist on the threshold—because of what would happen under these arrangements to a number of Conservative MPs if they were to get less than 50% of the vote, as they did in the last election. I have calculated that 60 Conservative MPs had Liberal Democrats in second place. My sense of friendship for my colleagues suggests to me that putting as many as 60 seats on the line is a very high price to pay for the purposes of something so central to the coalition. The figures I have show that those who would be affected range from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who got 34.9% of the vote, to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who got 49.7%. All those Members would be largely at risk, although some more so than others, and something will depend on the boundary changes. I cannot understand how my party can make arrangements that take those lambs to the slaughter. This is extraordinary and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point. I agree that turkeys do not usually vote for Christmas. Does he perhaps think that his leader has a plan for his party that he is obviously not party to?

[Mr Cash]

I have voted consistently against this Bill and I will continue to do so, for the reasons that I have given. It behoves some of us to act both with consistency and in principle against things that were not in our manifesto—in fact, it is the opposite because our manifesto declared that we were not in favour of the alternative vote. Furthermore, there was complete silence on the question of threshold until we received the Bill.

European Council

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am on only my third European Council, and they are rather more frequent than they used to be, but I do not think it is impossible to combine a strong defence of the national interest with building alliances. Everyone round that European Council table recognises that we actually do all have interests that we have to try to protect on our own as well as making sure that we are making the right decisions for the 27.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Given that negotiations on the budget are continuing with the European Parliament, will the Prime Minister give us one of his famous cast-iron guarantees that his Government will not accept an increase above 2.9%?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I can make is that 13 Heads of Government or Heads of State signed a letter saying they would not accept more than 2.9%, so it is not just my word but the word of all those leaders who have said that this should not be accepted. That is the best thing that we could do, and it gives a real chance of either achieving 2.9% or, possibly even better, a deadlock which would mean a freeze for next year.