Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain an anomaly in the “Agenda for Change” pay deal as it affects non-NHS providers? People working in the NHS for non-NHS providers may be eligible for extra money if the organisation they work for is in financial difficulties, but not if it is not. So badly run organisations are being rewarded and well-run organisations are being penalised, which seems to me to be perverse.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter. We have reached pay settlements with the “Agenda for Change” unions, and we continue to reach pay deals with other unions. We are also supporting non-NHS providers whose contracts are dynamically aligned. It is a complex area, so I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss his concerns.

Batten Disease

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to intervene to ensure that funding is provided to treat those suffering from Batten disease.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is a great champion for his constituents. We must ensure that all children with Batten disease receive world-class care and support. The Secretary of State has met families of children who suffer from the condition and has seen at first hand how cruel the disease can be. I pay tribute to my constituent Melanie Moffatt, whose amazing care for her daughter Matilda has been truly inspiring.

The whole House will recognise that a key element of providing world-class care is getting access to the most effective new medicines. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is the expert body, independent of the Government, that provides authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the NHS on whether new drugs and treatments represent an effective use of resources. If they do, the NHS is obliged to provide funding. In 2013, NICE introduced its highly specialised technologies programme, which supports access to drugs for very rare diseases such as Batten disease, through additional funding—up to £300,000 per quality-adjusted life year. However, companies still need to price their products appropriately and fairly. In this instance, Brineura has not been made available at a price that could be recommended by the NHS. NHS England stands ready to do a deal at a reasonable price, but this has not been possible so far. I urge BioMarin to sit down again with NICE and NHS England, as NICE has not yet published its final guidance, so that a fair and reasonable price can be agreed.

I assure the House that my Department and the NHS are working as hard as possible to improve the broader care and support for patients with rare diseases, including Batten disease. I reassure all Members that the Department is committed to ensuring that all patients with rare diseases have access to world-class medicines, care and support.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am grateful that she has not hidden behind sub judice on this occasion. Could she confirm to me that, while NHS England is obliged to follow a positive recommendation from NICE, it has the legal discretion not to follow a negative recommendation and can decide to pay for a drug? In the event that NHS England will not do this, what powers—if any—does the Secretary of State have to ensure that a drug is made available? If that cannot be done, in what way is NHS England accountable to Parliament for the decisions it makes, or is it entirely above accountability?

The point at issue today is that Brineura has now been available for two years and it is available in many other countries at a price that has been agreed between their authorities and BioMarin. We now know that three more children—leaving five altogether in this country, including my constituent Max—who ought to be receiving this drug are not. They suffer from a condition that means that they degenerate relatively quickly, and this drug can stop the decline in their condition. It is therefore urgent that this matter is addressed quickly, rather than continuing to allow time to pass with sick children getting worse. It really is a most important and pressing issue. In instances where the drug companies and NHS England cannot agree, but where other countries have agreed, I wonder whether there could be any system of arbitration to determine what is a fair price, because the development of these drugs is exceptionally expensive.

[Seema Kennedy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I will attempt to answer all of them.

In terms of governance, no, NICE is not above accountability. Ministers set the framework for NICE, which is a non-departmental body. The reason it was established was to have fairness—so that there was no postcode lottery on access to various drugs. It is important that medical experts and scientists make these decisions rather than politicians. Regular governance meetings are held between the Department and NICE. There is a framework agreement. Where the Secretary of State considers that NICE is failing, or has failed, to discharge its functions or to do so properly, he can direct NICE to discharge functions. If NICE were to fail to comply with the Secretary of State’s direction in those circumstances, he could discharge such functions himself. There is therefore a strong and robust governance system with regard to NICE.

It is not always very helpful to use other jurisdictions as a comparison because we do not know the exact price that has been agreed. In addition, different systems have different healthcare populations and do not necessarily have the equivalent of our national health service.

Turning to access to Brineura, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Max’s family. I know from the very moving testimony by him and by other hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and from speaking to my constituent Melanie on numerous occasions that this is an absolutely dreadful disease. That is why we want the NICE process to be able to bring drugs to market as quickly as possible. Drug companies find this drug difficult to develop—that it is very expensive. It is not necessarily a drug that will be paid for by having millions of sufferers globally, and therefore a different system needs to be in place. That is why the bar for QALY is so much higher.

My hon. Friend’s suggestion on arbitration is very interesting, and I will take it away. On NHS England and the negative procedure, yes, in theory we could do that, but it is unlikely if NICE does not recommend a process. Overall, where a drugs company and NICE are unable to come to an agreement—we see this with other medication as well—Ministers urge the company to carry on negotiating to have a fair price, because every pound spent on one drug is a pound that we cannot spend on a drug for another sick person.

Batten Disease: Access to Drugs

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, may I begin by thanking you for allowing me this Adjournment debate and for your personal encouragement to me to bring it forward? My gratitude goes beyond that; I also thank you for the way you so encourage this House to hold the Government—the Executive: those who rule us—to account.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and the terrific campaign she has been running in relation to Batten disease; she has done more than almost anybody else to highlight it. I note that two of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), have a great interest and a constituency concern in this issue, although they are not allowed to intervene on me for obvious reasons. I want to put their concern on the record. I know that others too might wish to intervene on this very important subject.

This evening’s debate is about my constituent, Max. Max is a little boy; he is eight years old. He is a lively boy, and those of us who have children know what eight-year-olds are like—what a joy they are and how wonderful their spirit is. But Max has this horrible disease. Batten disease is perhaps the cruellest disease that one can imagine as a parent. We all see our children grow; we see them learn to walk and then to talk, and to run and to do all the things that children do. Batten disease means that they then go backwards. It tends to hit at about two—on a child who has shown no signs until then. The talking stops and the walking becomes more difficult. The average life expectancy of a child with Batten disease is between six and 12.

The blow to parents, and to grandparents and families, that this is and must be, is so hard to bear and so difficult; it is so sad for them to see a child who they would hope would be going on into adulthood instead declining, and declining steadily. It is a neurodegenerative disease. To put it in layman’s terms, it is essentially dementia of the young: all that we see of Alzheimer’s in people in their 70s, 80s and 90s is instead happening to a child.

But there is a drug that delays this. It is not a cure and it does not reverse the disease, but it seems to stop its progression—nobody knows for how long. It is called Brineura and it has been shown to be effective on a number of children who have taken it. So far in this country there are only two children for whom it would be suitable who are not receiving it, one of whom is Max. The others are receiving it as part of a trial that has been successful and is still being funded by the drug company—but that might not continue for ever, so there is an argument for them as well. I mentioned earlier the enormous contribution that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has made, and I am very glad to see her in her place; without her, I do not think this really important matter would have achieved the publicity that it has received.

This drug Brineura has been given a quality-adjusted life years rating by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of 30, which is the highest rating that it gives. That means that the drug is thought to provide 30 extra years of life of good quality. That is a stunning achievement for any drug, and it has been given the highest rating and the highest amount of funding, but unfortunately that amount of funding is not enough. The pricing cannot be agreed between NHS England, NICE and BioMarin, the manufacturer.

BioMarin is a drug company that needs to make a return on the amount of money it has spent. To be fair to the company, it spent $696 million last year on research and development and made a pre-tax loss of $142 million, so it is not an enormously profitable, rapacious company that is being difficult. One might think, however, that having lost $142 million, it might quite welcome a little bit of income from the national health service. If I were one of its shareholders, I might suggest that it would be a good idea to do something with the national health service so that the company could get some income back on its $696 million of research and development expenditure in 2018. Without an agreement between the buyers and sellers, Max will not receive the drug and his standard of life will decline month by month.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know about my constituent, Michal Luc, who is in exactly the same situation. We talk to parents who see their children degenerating and dying before their eyes. Does he agree that they cannot understand how we can argue over money when their children’s lives are disappearing before their very eyes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

Generally, I recognise the need for public expenditure constraint. Money always has to come from somewhere; it has to be either taxed or borrowed. However, in a country that spends over £800 billion a year, and £120 billion or whatever it is a year on the national health service, can we not find just over £6 million a year for this small number of children who have a terrible disease that can be held at bay?

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this hugely important and timely debate. Does he share my concern that we seem to be witnessing a bit of a blame game between NHS England, NICE and BioMarin? Does he agree that they just need to get round the table and resolve this issue one way or another, even if it requires the Minister to bring them together and knock some heads together to get them to come to a resolution? The rapid-acting nature of Batten disease means that my constituents Nicole and Jessica Rich and the other children who are affected just do not have the time for this wrangling to carry on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The terrible thing is that in the month that has passed since I first raised this matter in the House, Max’s condition will have slightly deteriorated, and in every month that goes on while we are debating this, not just Max but all the children with this condition will go downhill. That is what happens with this disease.

There are questions to be asked about the structure of policy on rare diseases, and about the Government’s response and what powers they have. As I said at the beginning, accountability through this House is of fundamental importance. By law, the Secretary of State still maintains overall responsibility for the provision of healthcare in this country. It is the Secretary of State who is accountable. We cannot make NICE accountable; it has not been structured to be accountable. It does not appear in the Chamber to tell us what it is doing—that is done by second degree, through Ministers. We really need to know what, if any, reserve powers Ministers may have to be able to do something about the situation.

Can something be done? Can a budget exception be provided, so that funds may be made available for these rare diseases? Can something be done, as has been done for cancer treatments, to provide money where exceptionality can be seen? Of course these drugs are expensive: they affect so few people, and the drugs companies will not develop them if they cannot at least make their money back. Can something be done as in other areas, particularly cancer, to ensure that the drugs can be provided? Can the rule changes in 2017 that made it harder to fund rare disease drugs be reviewed and possibly reversed? Since 2017, the financial aspect has become much more significant than it was before.

Although I accept, of course, that there is a need to look at costs, when we are talking about eight-year-old children, we are not talking about a cost for people who only have weeks or months to live, but about a child who could have years of a high quality of life ahead of him. That must be where most of us as taxpayers think it is right to spend money and where we think that the moral case for spending money is extraordinarily strong.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the impact of rare conditions such as Batten disease is not just felt in the child’s physical health, but in their mental health and the mental health of their wider family? The system for judging what is value for money and how our NHS should spend its money needs to take a much broader approach when calculating the value of these medicines in those circumstances. It needs to get it right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady puts it so well—and it is not just the family, but the community. On Saturday, the village of East Harptree, a small village in North East Somerset, came together for its annual village fête. All the funds raised were to try and help Max. He is at the local primary school, East Harptree Primary School. The week before, they had the school races. All the children had gone back a few yards so that Max could win, for the first and only time in his life, the race at his school. That is such a wonderful example of community. If communities can do that, surely the Government can help too, because it is not just Max and not just his wonderful family who are trying so hard to do the right thing for him. A whole community would be pleased, and would feel it was being taken notice of, if Max were helped—all his schoolfriends and schoolteachers and the whole community in East Harptree.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman gives a really powerful example. The whole of the community in Newcastle knows about Nicole and Jessica Rich and is doing everything it can to support them in this journey. This not only affects those two beautiful children; it also affects their family in a huge way, and the whole community.

For that reason, I beg the Minister today to recognise that this is not only about reaching the right decision, but about doing it with urgency. Every day, there is an impact on their deteriorating health, and there is also the impact on the parents of supporting those children with a debilitating condition and living with the agony of not knowing what future lies ahead—whether the medicine that will save their children’s lives will be funded or not.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I so agree with the hon. Lady. I am of course primarily talking about Max, my constituent, but to take the drug away from children who are already getting it would be unconscionable. I simply do not believe that any reasonable person—any politician or any administrator—would think that the right thing to do. It is bad enough not to give the drug to a child who could benefit; to withdraw it would be so utterly wrong that I cannot believe that that could happen.

When something can be done, it is hard for it not to be done and for us to allow it not to be done. It is frustrating that it is so hard to change and that there seems to be nobody who can decide it. Everyone one talks to says it is not up to them. NICE is bound by its guidelines, NHS England is bound by NICE, and the Secretary of State is bound by the legal interpretation of what the Health and Social Care Act 2012 provides, but none of that is good enough. We need action. Ultimately, it is Ministers, through Parliament, who are able to act.

Let me finish with what Max’s father, Simon Sewart, who has been doing so much to look after his son, wrote:

“I have always understood that life is no fairy tale with a happy ending, but when you learn that your beautiful child has a disease, as horrific as Batten Disease, your world changes forever and your heart is broken.

NICE announced, just 24 hours after Max’s diagnosis, that the first ever treatment for CLN2 Batten Disease will not be funded.

At a time when you should be taking care of your child, your other children, and enjoying precious time together as a family, you instead find yourself spending all of your time writing emails and letters, speaking to journalists and TV news programmes, communicating with your MP and with doctors in other countries where the ERT is available.

Expending all of your energy in fighting the extraordinary decision by NICE and NHSE. And all the time, you see your child decline, day by day. And all the time, you just want to expend your energy on them, on holding them, on playing with them, on laughing and smiling with them, on running with them, on walking with them, on talking with them, on looking around at the world with them; on all these things. With them.

This double-whammy is almost too much to bear. Reverse your decision NICE and let my family be.”

Is that not what we all want for Max and his family? He has this terrible disease. It is not a disease that he can ever be cured of, but if he gets this treatment, he could have a higher-quality life and his family would be peacefully with him, enjoying his company for the years that remain to him. Please can the Minister do something about this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order follows on from what you said and I hope it may be helpful to the Minister in giving her a moment to reflect on what you have just said. I would express a broader concern on this sub judice question, because, as you rightly said, it is always the prerogative of this House to discuss what it wishes to discuss, regardless of what is going on in any court. The sub judice rule has only ever been a self-denying ordinance of this House, to feel that it should not trample on things that were immediately before another court, rather than something that can be enforced upon us. In that respect, we are different from any other place in the country—other than of course their lordships’ House—which would be subject to sub judice as a matter of law. We are subject to it only in so far as we feel that it is wise to be cautious and prudent, and not to interrupt another of the separated powers within our judicial system. Therefore, it seems to me that whenever Ministries decide to cite sub judice rules, it would be wise to have consulted Mr Speaker or one of the Clerks in advance, in order to have some clarity before the debate begins.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, it is a matter of prudence on the part of the House of Commons; it is not a cloak behind which the Executive branch should seek to hide. I know that the Minister would not attempt to do so, but any advice that might be thought to be intended to allow that to happen would be ill viewed by right hon. and hon. Members, and most certainly by their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I know that the Secretary of State met the hon. Lady and other Members recently, and this is something that he cares about passionately. We are doing everything we can in the Department of Health and Social Care to try to move the position forward. The hon. Lady is right to say that had this issue been satisfactorily resolved, we would not be having this discussion at all, we would not be talking about legal proceedings and the situation would hopefully be a lot easier to resolve.

I have only a short amount of time left to be able to give some sort of response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We have 40 minutes left, Mr Speaker, so we are not short of time.

[Mr Speaker]

No, we have plenty of time. We can continue until 7.30. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we have plenty of time. And of course, there will be an opportunity for either a ministerial statement or an urgent question between now and Thursday, so we have, if I may say so, bucket-loads of time to deliberate on this important matter. I know that that message will be extremely well received by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do apologise for the further confusion that is here today. We are trying to seek further guidance on this—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend allow me?

[Caroline Dinenage]

In a moment.

The advice that I have been given is that I have to be very careful on the legal procedure because of the fact that it is not a legal procedure between individuals and the Department, but between individuals and NICE. I do not want anything that we say potentially to negatively impact on a family’s opportunity to get these very important drugs for their children.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I give way.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand that discussions have been rapidly going on while we have had points of order and various other things happening in this Chamber. I am not sure whether this is orderly, Mr Speaker, but I happened to notice that there has been a return to the officials’ box of advisers. I wonder whether inspiration might now be forthcoming and heading in the direction of the Minister and whether I am now giving time for such advice to be passed through, or whether the telephone calls that I heard were taking place have not been as fruitful as I might have hoped.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not in a position to know that immediately for the simple reason that the Speaker does not possess eyes in the back of his head, and I have been focusing on the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and other colleagues, rather than on the occupants of the officials’ box. I have seen a note that has been circulating and a Minister is attempting to assist one of my advisers. I assume the Minister is attempting to do so on the basis of information provided. Whether there is something that is so valuable that the Minister in question is about to furnish the answering Minister with it, I do not know, but I am allowing a suitable opportunity for that missive to be passed to the Minister for Care, who is, of course, entitled to digest and reflect upon its contents and to decide in the light thereof how she wishes to continue, but I repeat that there is no shortage of time. I am very grateful to the Minister for her characteristic courtesy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My constituent Max is aged eight and has Batten disease. He is one of only two sufferers of this disease who are not receiving the medicine that can improve their quality of life and keep them alive. Eleven other children in this country with Batten disease are receiving the drug, which is very effective but very expensive. The drug manufacturer has offered six months’ free supply to Max and the other person not getting it and has made other proposals to NHS England, which is currently refusing even to have meetings with the drug company to discuss how my constituent, this dying child, may receive the drugs he needs. Will my right hon. Friend intervene and use whatever reserve powers he has to ensure that my constituent gets this life-saving drug?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House about the need for these rare diseases to be given the attention they need so that sufferers such as Max can get the medicines if at all possible. As he knows following our meeting, the formal legal responsibilities lie with NHS England and NICE. I have raised this case, and that of others mentioned earlier, with the chief executive of NHS England and will raise it once again following this Question Time. We will do all we can to resolve this.

Leaving the EU: Tobacco Products and Public Health

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly says that this is a very important constitutional issue. At 10 o’clock, will the motion immediately go to a vote, or will it require a closure motion?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. If the debate is still continuing, there will be no vote. However, I say once again that this matter is in the hands of Members. If Members who prolonged the urgent questions and statements earlier are listening or paying any attention—there is a very good chance that they have given up and gone home—they know that it was their actions earlier in the day that curtailed this debate. Let us not curtail it any further.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that an Expert Working Panel Group Inquiry was set up by the Government to investigate and assess evidence on children born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes with concern that the terms of reference as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency do not clearly allow for an investigation into the systematic regulatory failures of government bodies at the time; notes the conflict of interest of some panel members; further notes that all evidence must be presented to expert panel members as set out in the term of reference; calls on the Inquiry to ensure that all evidence is presented to the expert panel with sufficient time for due consideration; further calls on the inquiry to guarantee thorough background checks on all panel members; calls for the terms of reference to be amended to include an investigation into the conduct of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; further calls on the Government to ensure that the inquiry has the trust and confidence of the victims for whom it was set up; and believes that, unless these changes are made, the ability of the Inquiry to achieve a fair outcome will be significantly compromised.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate—the second on this issue, which I started to campaign on five years ago. Just under two years ago, I asked the Backbench Business Committee for a debate about a drug called Primodos, which was prescribed to pregnant women in the 1960s and 1970s. It had 40 times the strength of oral contraceptives prescribed today, and we know what they were devised for. It is estimated that at least 1.5 million women may have taken this drug, and thousands of families suffered. In answer to a written parliamentary question, the then Minister assessed that 3,540 women may have suffered effects. We think that the actual figure is much higher.

This all started in 2011, when I met my constituent Nichola at her home. She was born with life-threatening internal congenital deformities to her stomach, spine, heart and womb. She had her first operation was when she was seven days old. Since then, her life has consisted of visiting hospital, as an in-patient and an out-patient, and going through various procedures. Another of my constituents is Bridget Olive.

When I met Nichola at her home, I saw boxes and boxes of documents, some of which had been leaked by various pharmaceutical companies and other bodies. I had a brief look through some of those documents, and it was at that point that I decided that the issue needed more than mentioning, or raising; we needed a real investigation and an inquiry on what happened. I am not exaggerating or being over-emotional, but, applying my legal knowledge in my capacity as a barrister, I am prepared to say that there was deliberate criminal, negligent oversight by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines as regards this drug and its usage, and the fact that it continued to be prescribed for years, despite most of the medical community knowing that it had caused adverse consequences for the women who took it.

At the end of the first debate on this subject, the Minister agreed that there would be an expert panel inquiry on the issue. He agreed, in and outside Parliament, that the inquiry would look at all the available documents, including those that we would provide, or had come across, and those in the archives. The Minister went further and ordered that all the documents held by the current equivalent body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, should be revealed. The inquiry was to look at all the documents and assess what had happened. I will come on to what the inquiry has produced, but this debate is more about how the inquiry has progressed. An inquiry that becomes a whitewash is pointless and a waste of time and money.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate, and I reiterate and agree with what she says. When at the heart of the matter there is a regulator who took eight years to act between 1967 and 1975, and many years later is investigating what it had done, it is crucial that that inquiry is seen to be independent and full.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to the issue of the independence of the inquiry and the members of the panel.

The Minister indicated that the inquiry would be carried out by an independent panel of experts and said that it would look at everything that had happened and the lessons to be learned. Our present concern is about what happened, who did what and who failed to do what, and what compensation and apology victims will receive.

I shall briefly highlight some of the evidence that we have uncovered, which shows what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Along with other Members, I want to pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has run a terrific campaign on this issue, worked tirelessly, set up the APPG and raised an issue that ought to be of the greatest concern to all Members because it goes, in a way, to the heart of how Governments behave. I want to focus on the inquiry and the need to establish faith with the families who have been involved with what has happened in relation to Primodos.

It seems to me that there is a strong prima facie case that something was wrong with this drug, that it was known to the authorities and that they failed to act on it for an extended period. The first warning about it was on 11 July 1967 and the adverse reaction committee felt that there were grounds for further investigation, yet it was eight years later in 1975 when it was said that Primodos was not to be prescribed for women who were pregnant. That seems to me so irresponsible, when the risks of prescribing drugs to pregnant women are so particularly high.

Governments are amazingly good at apologising for things that happened so long ago that there is nothing that can be done about them. I seem to remember that one Government apologised for the Irish potato famine 150 years after it had happened. That does no good to anybody. What Governments need to do is to put things right when people are still alive and affected by the failings that took place. But when they have not acted, when time has gone by, the onus of proof shifts to them.

It is for Governments at that point to show how well they are behaving and how properly they are going through the process. It is for them to rebuild the trust with the families, not for the families to accept guarantees from the Government without any depth to them. Therefore, with the appointments to this inquiry, the information that is being made available to it and the investigations that are taking place, the Government have a long way to go to re-establish a trust that was probably lost as long ago as 1975. It is in that context that I hope the Minister will respond to make it clear that the Government understand the strength of the case that has been made, will be looking at it with a genuinely open mind, and will see not that things can be put right, but at least that some amelioration should be made if it is found in the end that there was fault in what the Government did, what the regulator did and, of course, what the drug company did.

There are so many bits and pieces that cause suspicion—the disappearance of records is a particularly important one. Where did those records go, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East asked? A lot of the information is in German and there is a question over whether it is being translated even for the committee. When such issues hang over an inquiry, the Government have a lot of work to do to re-establish trust so that Members of this House and, more importantly, the people affected can believe that the inquiry is fair.

Once again, I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she has done. I do not want to go into specific cases because I think those will be judged by the inquiry and that it will be a proper process to investigate whether the evidence is there on a widespread scale, but with such a strong base case, as we already know, we must have an inquiry that people can trust.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point: one must always balance the benefit and the cost. I do not have figures on the cost of the consultation, but I think he will agree that the principle of a public consultation is a sound one, and that is what I am speaking to.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend explain what he means by “appropriate”? Does it mean the Secretary of State should ask a few mates in the pub what they think of the proposals, or a more formalised system through petition of this House?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I shall turn to what I mean by “appropriate” in due course, but I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will know on plain reading of the word “appropriate” what is or is not appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am very grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remind my hon. Friend that he said he would explain what the word “appropriate” meant in this context, which is an important point for the House to be clear upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful for that intervention, but my view is that in this case it is unnecessary to use the affirmative procedure to approve the matter and the negative procedure would suffice. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I respectfully suggest that these amendments are appropriate. I was looking up one of the notes in the Library, perhaps one prepared by one of your predecessors, Mr Speaker, and I found that it stated that the affirmative procedure is less common, being used in perhaps only 10% of cases.

I will not take up time by referring to the other amendments, merely noting that several and other hon. Members will speak to them in due course. I look forward to a constructive debate on this group.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I had not intended to follow on so quickly, Mr Speaker, as I thought there would be a great rush to the barricades of people wanting to speak. I am moved to speak in opposition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is proposing before dealing with my own amendments. I am very concerned about what he is suggesting, given its radicalism and its move away from proper parliamentary scrutiny and from the sovereignty this House enjoys. He asks us to throw all that away for this vague “appropriate” consultation. One of his amendments would remove the following provision in the Bill:

“A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) which amend or repeal primary legislation…may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House”.

You will know, Mr Speaker, that one of the most dangerous powers this House can give to Ministers—one we have always been cautious about giving them—is the power to amend primary legislation without going through the normal procedures for repealing primary legislation. Therefore, slipping in an amendment to a Bill that would take away that safeguard from this House and the other place, and allow things to be nodded through, is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It takes away the authority of this House and is therefore fundamentally dangerous, and so I oppose it.

[Jeremy Quin]

Does my hon. Friend envisage any de minimis provision whatsoever? Should everything come before this House as primary legislation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If primary legislation is being changed the default position should be that it can be changed only by primary legislation. That should not be subject to a de minimis level because primary legislation is by its nature important. If something is not important, why is it in primary legislation? If it is in primary legislation it can be assumed that it is a matter of such nature, state and standing that it has required this House, the other place and Her Majesty to approve it. If we are dealing in trivialities, that is a broader constitutional question that should be considered and we should stop doing that. If something is in primary legislation, it ought, as a starting point, only be changed by primary legislation.

To allow Ministers what have been known as Henry VIII clauses to wipe out primary legislation is something that constitutionalists have been concerned about for many years. That is why I am very uncomfortable with this provision being slipped in as an amendment and brushed over when what it does is of fundamental importance and is quite rarely used. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made the point that the affirmative route for statutory instruments is rarer than the negative one, and that is quite correct, but the negative one is mainly used for routine regulations that do not engage in any change to primary legislation. When primary legislation is changed, that ought to be brought to the House.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend says that this is being slipped in, but surely now, today, we have the opportunity to debate it and he has the opportunity to speak against it. We are having that discussion right now.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is absolutely right, but I think that slipped in is a perfectly fair phrase on Fridays, because the debates then tend to be quiet and relatively poorly attended. However, it is nice to see our Benches so full and well trooped, if I might say so, by people who are in the Chamber to support the Bill. I am rather surprised that our friends from Scotland are all absent, but I suppose that the Bill does not immediately affect them, at least not in the first half.

I want to move on to the comparison between the amendment getting rid of the affirmative route for statutory instruments and the one on public consultation. It seems to me to be an extraordinary approach to take to say that when a regulation is changed by the Secretary of State, it is better that it should be consulted on with a group of self-selecting individuals who take the time to get in touch, taking away the ability of this House to act as that safeguard and check. Surely we are here, with a democratic mandate, as the main people to be consulted on behalf of our electorate, to whom we have to report every so often. Issues should not be put out to local consultation, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, is often more of a fig leaf and an attempt to consult and either achieve a result that is already intended. If not, the consultation is ignored. Consultation has become immensely fashionable and we should always be cautious of fashion. Fashion ebbs and it flows, it comes and it goes, but there is a permanence to this House and in our way of doing things. We are the democratic sounding board for our constituents, so that there are not endless self-selecting consultations with people who are not necessarily particularly interested in the issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman himself has ever been fashionable, which is in itself extremely doubtful, it can only have been by accident.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, as always, you are correct. I think that I would take being called fashionable as a grave insult, although I know that your ties are regularly a model of fashion.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Moving away from the dangers of fashion back to the substance of what we should be debating, will my hon. Friend address the point about the principle of the public consultation and the fact that this very Bill was the product of public consultation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid that I think that most public consultation is bogus. It is about going through the motions and pretending we are interested in views when the Government, or councils or whatever else, want to get on and do whatever they wish to do anyway. It simply allows opportunities for judicial review to gum up the process. We should be incredibly cautious about chucking public consultation into Bills, because that does not actually achieve anything.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents would look on agog at a Bill designed to simplify the process requiring a three-year consultation followed by yet another one?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That is the problem with this endless consultation; nothing gets done. Last May, people voted and gave us a mandate to do things, not to ask them what we should do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I ask my hon. Friend to consider this point? He mentioned the word “appropriate”. Nowhere does my amendment suggest a three-year consultation period—rather, it suggests an appropriate consultation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I raised the question of what the word “appropriate” meant earlier and I was indeed intending to come back to it. Appropriate, inappropriate, unacceptable and disappointing are those new Labour words that get dropped into conversations and they mean remarkably little or what, in a Humpty Dumptyish way, what the person hearing them wishes to think that they mean. What is an appropriate consultation? There is no qualification or clarification in the amendment, so what is it intended to achieve? Does “appropriate” mean that signs should be put on noticeboards, as with planning issues? Does it mean that letters should be written to local residents? Does it mean that something should be squirrelled away on the internet? Does it mean that a paper should be laid before this House, or put in the Library, where, no doubt, many people would follow its contents closely? Or does “appropriate” mean that the Secretary of State has a word in his office with the permanent secretary, saying, “Do you think this would be a good idea, Sir Humphrey?”, then Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, you would be very brave, Minister,” and then the idea is dropped on the basis of that consultation? Does it mean the Secretary of State can have a word at home with his family—with his kitchen cabinet—telling them that he is minded to appoint or not appoint a few trustees? I could tell all sorts of anecdotes about how that used to happen in the good old days, but I think it might be wandering slightly from the point. “Appropriate” is a very imprecise word and legislation ought to be precise.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is giving us the benefit of his usual style of speech—[Interruption.] Of fashionable speech, yes. It is certainly in fashion on a Friday to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) speak so well. Does he agree that the problem is that “appropriate” can mean anything under the sun and that various people have different views? For example, with the recent pension changes, some have said that the information should appear in adverts in the press and others that it should be provided in individual hand-delivered letters. This term is so vague and really would have to be defined. I think it is strange to say that we want to consult if we are handing out something that is unlikely to get more than a handful of responses given its detailed and technical nature. That will merely build up in the public’s mind the idea that yet again people have decided what they will do and are now consulting on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to finish on this set of amendments by saying that this House should be jealous of its role as the major focus of consultation in the nation. We were elected to represent our constituents and therefore to express views on these issues. That is why we are here, and what is done with consultation so often is a pretence. It is not about the Government wanting the wisdom of the millions before making up their mind but about the Government wanting the comfort of having been through a rigmarole to get what they wanted in the first place. We should not give up our authority lightly or increase the power of the Executive.

I know want to turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, which are absolutely glorious in their conception. They basically reverse what the Bill is trying to do in the first place, which is a great thing for him to have slipped past our ever-attentive Clerks. That does not often happen on Report. Perhaps the amendments—and this is why our Clerks in their wisdom let them go through—would ensure that there is a safeguard. Safeguards may be sensible. There have been occasions where charities have got into trouble when public money is being spent. Although it is broadly considered a good idea to remove the power from the Secretary of State to appoint trustees so that a decision is made more locally and so that the construction of the charities may be more suitable for the local organisations—that has a great deal of support —we know that something will go wrong at some point.

That is not a particularly Cassandra-like view to take; it is just the experience that we have. We know that there will be a small charitable hospital that puts all its money into an Icelandic bank, for example, and suddenly loses it. The trustees get criticised and attacked, or they write 3,000 letters a year to elderly ladies asking them for money and are seen to have behaved badly. Then somebody will come forward, probably a Member of this House, who will ask the Secretary of State at Question Time, “Why is it that you, Secretary of State, are not doing anything to stop this problem arising? Why have you not kept those residual powers? Why did you not ensure that when the Bill went through Parliament, there was a safeguard, something to protect—”

[Maggie Throup]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. That could happen to any charity, not just an NHS charity, so why introduce safeguards specifically for NHS charities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. NHS charities are different because of the structure of the national health service and the conception of the national health service in people’s minds. There is much less of an immediate governmental interest, or concern with, ordinary private charities that were founded sometimes centuries ago with grants from generous benefactors that through the mists of time have evolved and developed. NHS charities work side by side with the state in all that they do, so they are a marginal extension of the state rather than something completely different from it. If we draw a Venn diagram of the third sector, we have a part that is very private and another part that is very much state. NHS charities are very much in the state part of the Venn diagram.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is generous with his time, as always. He talks about NHS charities being close to the state and therefore needing particular provision, but many other charities work closely with our national health service. I think of Rowcroft hospice in my constituency which provides palliative care across south Devon. Why, then, safeguard only certain charities? Why not expand it to all? The amendments do not strike me as worth while.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend ignores the starting point, which is that the Secretary of State makes the appointments, whereas that has never been the case for other charities. They have evolved differently, whereas NHS charities are evolving out of the NHS, more towards the private sector. To put in place a safeguard which one hopes would not be used seems to me quite a prudent thing to do. It says, “This is our hope, this is our intention. We expect it to work and we think it will work in the vast majority of cases and make NHS charities more like other private sector charities.”

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I give way to the promoter of the Bill.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful. The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill is proceeding through this House. It comes back to the Chamber next week, giving us the opportunity to hear more about the work of the Charity Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the NHS charities that we are discussing today become independent, there is the assurance that they will be covered by the Charity Commission? That goes a long way to ensuring public trust in those charities, which is the crux of the matter.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I suppose the answer is “Up to a point, Lord Copper.” The Charity Commission has marvellous and admirable elements. It has a brilliant chairman who has been a great force for good in that organisation, sorting out some of the problems that it had before his appointment. I think particularly of the dreadful treatment meted out to the Plymouth Brethren before he was there. It is none the less an unelected, unaccountable quango. I take the rather extraordinary view that we should trust our democratically elected politicians more than we should trust the unelected. That is why I am always banging on about this House maintaining its own powers, and why we should hold Ministers to account. We should be very cautious about thinking that an independent, unaccountable body is a better supervisor than the democratic will of the nation expressed through this House.

When responsibility is shifted, it is prudent to do that cautiously, in stages, and to keep a safeguard in place. When the first case goes wrong, which it will—within 10 years something will have happened; there will be an NHS charity where the accountant has snaffled off all the money and gone to Barbados or wherever it is fashionable to go at this time of year, or perhaps gone off to South Africa to watch the test match—at that point people will say, “Why didn’t the Government do something about that? Why have they not got a plan? Why didn’t they make sure that they could keep it under control?”. Having a protection, possibly even a time-limited one—

[Jeremy Quin]

I agree with the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he agree that if that power exists, it is even more likely that charities will fall into that predicament? If they are fully cognisant of their own responsibilities and know that they have to look to themselves to ensure that such problems do not occur, it is far more likely that fewer such problems will occur.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I cannot follow the logic of that argument. I do not think charities will be more likely or less likely to have ill governance because the Secretary of State is in or out. The protection would be there in case there is ill governance, which there invariably is to a small degree. In charities, businesses and Governments there is invariably ill practice somewhere along the line, and I do not think the motive for ill practice is affected by the knowledge that the Secretary of State may be keeping an eye on them or a feeling that he is not doing so. We need to ensure that if the problem arises, there is a safeguard—a mechanism to put things right.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was not for one moment suggesting that a board may be encouraged to act in an adverse way because of powers resting with the Secretary of State. A presence that could rescue a charity in dire straits may influence the judgments of a board of trustees.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I quibble about the word “rescue”. It is not so much rescue as fire. If the trustees do things badly, the Secretary of State may fire them and put other people in their place. That would not encourage slackness, idleness or malpractice. It would encourage probity, forthrightness and good management. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument supports what I am saying, rather than what he thought he was promoting.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has proposed extremely sensible, prudent measures that will keep a broad eye on what is going on.

[Kevin Foster]

I am listening to the points being made, but I am still struggling to understand why a handful of NHS charities performing wrongly would be any different from any other charity performing wrongly. I see the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) in her place. We remember the recent discussions in the Public Accounts Committee about the Kids Company collapse. Why should we not have a good system of charity regulation, rather than a specific power, as suggested in the amendments?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I reiterate—I am sorry, Mr Speaker, to reiterate. I may be becoming repetitive, but I hope not yet tediously repetitive; that may come at a later stage. We need to look at the starting point. These charities are coming out of the control of the Secretary of State. To move them completely away from his control in one fell swoop may be relatively imprudent, whereas to do it more cautiously and keep a safeguard is perfectly sensible. By contrast, in the case of charities that have never been under the Secretary of State and have never had their trustees appointed by the Government, it is perfectly sensible to leave them with their existing regulatory system.

[Wendy Morton]

We have had a lot of debate about the term “appropriate”. What exactly does my hon. Friend mean by “cautiously”? I have to say that I am very sceptical about this amendment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to out-pedant me, which is a great thing to do, and she may well have won this particular bout of pedantry. By “cautiously” I mean proceeding in a step-by-step way. I am fully supportive of the thrust of what her Bill is trying to do, which is admirable, sensible and wise. I am merely suggesting that in seeking to reach the same destination, we should ensure that there is a fall-back position in case things happen that are less than ideal. That is simply a matter of good sense and good housekeeping. There is no need to do everything in a great rush. As somebody once said, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, and there are no doubt other clichés of a similar kind that I could use.

I want to turn to my own amendments, two of which are concerned with preserving the rights of this House. Amendment 8 would remove clause 2(8), which is about how the statutory instrument setting out regulations of this kind should be brought forward. It would ensure that a draft of the instrument is laid before the House and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Laws are always best made when they go through the full democratic process, controls are kept on Ministers, and we do not have arbitrary government.

We need to ensure that the assets underlying this are being protected, so in amendment 7 I suggest that there should be a statement by the Comptroller and Auditor General—a comptroller who is properly spelt rather than a controller with the modern spelling—that he is satisfied with the treatment of public assets and funds envisaged in the regulations. This is public money, to some degree—money that is under public auspices.

[Jeremy Quin]

I challenge my hon. Friend on that remark. Surely it is not public money but charitable money. It has been invested in the charity by donors, and the last thing they would expect is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to opine on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I go back to what I said earlier about where NHS charities sit. By virtue of the money being given to a charity that supports the NHS, that money comes into the public purview and is subject to the way in which the public sector ought to ensure the good management of money. That is why I think it is appropriate—“appropriate”; I am using that awful word—rather, suitable and proper that it should be audited thoroughly to make sure that assets are not handed over that should not be handed over or misappropriated, and to give confidence to this House, and indeed to the other place, that moneys are being sensibly protected. These are very modest amendments.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of his comments strike against the heart of this Bill, which says that these charities should be independent so that people feel encouraged to donate to them rather than feeling that by doing so they are replacing what could be, or they might believe should be, funded by the Government. Saying that it becomes public money when donated hits at the whole point of the Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What a pleasure it is to see you taking the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been waiting for this happy hour to arrive to help us carry our debates forward.

No, I do not think my hon. Friend is right. When people give money to a charity that is linked to the Government, they are even more concerned that it will be spent well, and they therefore want extra protections to assure them of that.

[Seema Kennedy]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the entire point of the Bill is to dissociate the charities from the Government and to provide independence, which is what gives them such a great reputation in their local areas?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said, it is a question is how we get to where we are going from where we are starting. As we make the transition, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that the money is handed over in a way that is properly audited so that people can have confidence in the NHS charities and not feel that there is some kind of sleight of hand or money is being siphoned off.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend not agree, though, that funds donated to the NHS and put into these charities must be held separately from Exchequer funding provided by the taxpayer? Charities exist to support their beneficiaries, and there is a special relationship between the charities and the—

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is wonderful just to be able to imagine my hon. Friend in my mind. I have finished my intervention, but I am grateful for your advice and reminder.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a very distracting interlude, I must confess.

The key is the safeguarding of money and ensuring that things are done properly with an audit trail.

[Kit Malthouse]

Does my hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) gave herself away at the beginning of her intervention when she referred to this money being donated by the public to the NHS? In the public’s mind, there is often a confusion between the charity and the institution that it serves, and it is therefore crucial to have these controls.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. That confusion is almost inevitable. In the case of charities linked to hospitals, most members of the public will expect the money that is spent charitably to be as thoroughly audited as the money that is spent by the state, and it is prudent to formalise that.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am desperately trying not to look at my hon. Friend; I will try to imagine him. He is being typically modest in saying that these are modest proposals, as they go to the heart of the Bill. He refers to the necessity of an audit trail, and I agree. However, there are plenty of very good firms of auditors fit and proper for making such pronunciations, so I do not see why we need to trouble the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a busy man with lots of other stuff to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s kindness towards the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I am sure, noted in many other places beyond this one, and I expect that his office would be delighted not to have the extra work. However, my hon. Friend is missing a point that I may already have laboured, so I will labour it only once more. This is a transition phase. This money is very close to public money. It is in a Neverland, one might say, in that it is not quite separate from charitable money and not quite ordinary public expenditure. Therefore, keeping an eye on how it is used in the most formal and protected way, at least in an initial stage, is a prudent way of ensuring that the assets are not used or transferred unsuitably.

Amendment 9 is different in nature and arises from a constituency issue. A constituent of mine, with the support of the NHS, established a charity that put defibrillator boxes around the country. These are very admirable boxes that operate in conjunction with the ambulance service and have been shown to save lives by ensuring that defibrillation equipment is available throughout small villages across the country. It has been a most successful charitable endeavour.

While my constituent was working with the ambulance trusts, they wrote to him to say that it was perfectly all right—indeed, they wanted him to do this—to put the ambulance service logo on the boxes, so that people would know that they were formally connected to the NHS. He then received a letter out of the blue from some little-known bureaucracy that protects the NHS logo. I understand the reasons for that: we do not necessarily want random private companies to call themselves the NHS or for unrelated businesses to use the logo. Some protection is needed, but the letter struck me as a heavy-handed way of going about things. It was an excessive response to something that was linked to the NHS and that was, at its core, a health issue operating with and through the support of the NHS.

The amendment would merely make it straightforward for the Secretary of State to overrule the whole procedure. When there is an issue of this kind, the Secretary of State would have the power to say, “Well, there may be this bureaucracy that safeguards the NHS logo, but I am overruling it and giving permission for the logo to be used, because I think it is a sensible thing to do.”

The reason I like the amendment is that, in a strange way, it relates to what this place is about. It is about seeking redress of grievance for our constituents when they are badly treated by bureaucracy. The best way of doing that is not through independent, unaccountable and unelected bodies that have been separated off from Government, but by a Minister being held accountable at the Dispatch Box. That is how we get things put right for our constituents.

This very small amendment would simply allow the Secretary of State to short-circuit the system when it is behaving badly. It provides that the permission given by the Secretary of State can be cancelled with six months’ notice, which is a reasonable amount of time for people to change any boxes, stationery or anything else they may have with the NHS logo on it, if they are found to have been abusing the permission or for some other reason. The principle that power should be with democratically elected people, and that it should be there to override offshoots of bureaucracy that nobody previously knew about or cared for, is a very good and sound one. As I understand it, the issue that my constituent has had has been mainly sorted out, but the amendment would be a better and clearer way of dealing with such things.

Of the amendments that I have tabled, amendment 9 is of the greatest importance to me. As is the case with so much of what I have been saying, it is about the fundamental principle of what we are trying to do when we legislate. We are trying to ensure democratic accountability and the rights of our constituents, and not to be constantly handing things over to ever-growing bureaucracies.

[Kevin Foster]

The primary aim of this Bill is to make very clear that the charities are independent of the Government. The NHS logo relates to an organisation that is the epitome of what many people see the public sector as being about—that is, the Government. My hon. Friend’s amendment would, therefore, strike at the very heart of the Bill and make it less worthy.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. He has misunderstood, misconstrued and possibly even misread the amendment, which uses the word “may”. I am not compelling the Secretary of State to go out and chuck the logo on to every box he sees all over the country or to spray the NHS logo on every shopping centre he passes. I do not see him as a vandal going around with a spray can and a little cut-out stencil, spraying “NHS” on everything or engraving it on our foreheads when we come into the Chamber. That is not what the amendment proposes—it uses the word “may”. It says that when those charities that work immeasurably closely—hand in glove, on some occasions—with the national health service find it useful to use the logo and the Secretary of State thinks it is a good idea, he may give them the authority to do so.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Is my hon. Friend not at risk of falling foul of his own test? He criticised my amendment’s use of the word “appropriate”, but is not his use of the word “may” just as vague and risky?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course not. “May” is a very precise word: it is an allowing factor and it gives permission to somebody to do something, and they are allowed to use their discretion to do it. The amendment uses “may” so that people may go directly to the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable, and get the decision made, rather than have to go off to a bureaucracy that is not accountable or that is accountable only indirectly. “May” is about restoring democratic and, ultimately, parliamentary control over something that belongs to the nation as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

I was halfway to asking whether my hon. Friend would give way, so I am glad that he has invited me to intervene. His argument in favour of the amendment is very persuasive, but I am not fully convinced. Some liability is accrued by the use of a well-known logo associated with a national asset such as the NHS. Does he believe that the Secretary of State is the right person to be the final arbiter of whether it is acceptable to the public purse to undertake such a liability? The charities may be doing a great thing, but they are not actually the NHS.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I think that the Secretary of State is the right person, because that is his responsibility and that is where the buck stops, but the financial liability for the use of the NHS logo in the circumstances I have described is likely to be highly limited. Its use would merely indicate co-operation and collaboration with the NHS, not that the NHS was taking on all the responsibilities and liabilities of the organisation. Legally, it would not create the liability my hon. Friend suggests.

The amendment is the result of a specific constituency issue, which I have raised with Ministers on behalf of my constituent. It is an answer to that issue, but it also has broader application, which is why in due course I hope to move it formally.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was about to finish, but yes I will give way.

[Mr Bacon]

I was in the Tea Room and heard that a very fashionable Member was making a speech, so I thought I had better return to the Chamber at speed, which I did, and I am glad that I caught the end of my hon. Friend’s remarks. A liability might not arise in the way he describes, but surely he recognises that if the Secretary of State may allow the logo to be used, that would give rise to the possibility of judicial review. The Secretary of State may allow it in one case but not in another, and somebody who felt aggrieved by that could challenge the decision in the courts. Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the extra cost of litigation for the Government and the NHS in defending such proceedings?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has been caught up in this idea of fashion, and I am afraid that he speaks of yesterday’s fashion of judicial review. The great work done by the now Lord President of the Council and former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in restricting judicial review means that I simply do not think that that would now be a risk. It would have been a risk in those fashionable new Labour days, when people were judicially reviewing everything and having bogus consultations, which I spoke about earlier. That set the fashion for judicial review, but it is yesterday’s fashion. Those of us who are modern and who are with it—in the current phraseology—know that judicial review is yesterday’s news in such a context. Therefore, I do not believe that this would be a risk. It is a sensible way to deal with a problem that has arisen and to prevent it from arising again.

[Jeremy Quin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise that this will be my last intervention on my hon. Friend. To return to the logo, if any of my constituents saw the NHS logo on a letterhead, they would naturally assume that they could go through the relevant complaints procedures for the NHS. Is that what my hon. Friend has in mind? To me, it seems that that would be perfectly apparent to my constituents and a natural thing for them to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that those are the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would use his discretion to allow the logo to be used. I am thinking more of a sign outside a charity shop that supports the NHS, saying “We support the local NHS”, with the name of the local hospital that it is supporting and the local hospital’s logo, which includes the letters “NHS”. I am thinking of that sort of circumstance. It is not about promoting the charity as an offshoot of the NHS; it is about indicating its co-operation with the NHS.

Defibrillator boxes give the name of the ambulance service—the ambulance service’s logo includes the letters “NHS”—to indicate that people should ring 999. The ambulance service will then give them the code to open the box and talk them through how to use the equipment. Most of us probably would not know how to use it without some advice. It was entirely rational to use the logo until some idiotic bureaucracy got in the way. Initially, it was very stubborn—the worst type of pettifogging bureaucracy. If the Secretary of State had had the power to cut through such bureaucracy, that could just have been done.

The circumstances in which the discretion is used would be limited to where there was genuine co-operation—where the charitable sector and the NHS are working hand in glove—and there was a benefit from using it. It is not about charities posing as the NHS where they are not part of the NHS. If the Secretary of State thought the logo was being misused, he would have the power to rescind the permission. This protected and limited power would solve a particular problem.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 3 and 2, which—inexplicably, given their strength—stand in my name only, as well as the splendid amendment 9 and the unfortunate amendment 4. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my experience, debates with you in the Chair are often the most efficient and good natured. I hope that today’s debate will be just that.

On amendment 1, when one tables an amendment, it is a great pleasure to have one’s speech made for one much more eloquently than one could make it oneself, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his support. Recently, there have been significant charitable scandals in this country. Much of the time of the House and of the Public Accounts Committee has been taken up with Kids Company. I have become convinced that one of the phenomena at work in that organisation was group-think. Those hon. Members who are students of psychology will know of the phenomenon of group-think: individuals in a group, often when they are led by a charismatic leader, can get lost in a miasma of consensus, in which they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge any view that departs from theirs, and indeed are hostile to outside views of their conduct.

The most famous political example was the Bay of Pigs disaster: the group around President Kennedy became trapped in group-think. We have seen commercial examples of it in the UK. Marks & Spencer and British Airways got trapped in group-think in the 1980s, when they went for massive international expansion. They did so against the views of everybody on the outside, but both boards convinced themselves that it was the right thing to do. Disastrously, Kodak and Swissair, which was once talked of as the “flying bank”, went bust because the management were unwilling to look for outside views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a remarkably good point. For Members of this House, that is a very pertinent example of the damage that social media can wreak on our ancient institutions, such as the Labour party.

The truth is that the modern mind is much more susceptible to such things, and particularly to charismatic leaders. One only has to look at the effect of Instagram, and the millions of followers that otherwise unmeritorious individuals have on it, to see how willing people are to go along with such things these days, like sheep in a herd.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

Yes. Sorry, I should have said “flock”, not “herd”.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That was exactly my point.

[Kit Malthouse]

I thought so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for pedantry, who is right.

This is one of the things about which I am concerned. We saw the notion of group-think in Kids Company. A group of trustees, led by a charismatic leader, felt themselves to be invulnerable. They thought that they should not be doubted, and they were hostile to external views expressing doubt about them. One only has to review the correspondence of Mr Yentob, with his wild claims about the death and insurrection on the streets that Kids Company’s demise would cause, to see that group-think in action.

I studied politics and economics at university, specialising in the psychology and behavioural side of politics, and we studied group-think quite closely. When future students come to study group-think, they will look at Kids Company as a perfect example of it. Those involved were trapped in group-think. If only somebody had been able to step in and take control earlier, the charity and the remnants of its good work could have been saved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I acknowledge that point, but we have been round this carousel a couple of times. I pose just one question to those who are nervous about my amendments: in the event of something going wrong, who would fire and replace the trustees? No one. They become a self-governing group. One of the problems with charitable governance is that there are no shareholders to dispose of underperforming trustees. Charities have to acknowledge their own bad performance and fire themselves. In a situation where there is an inextricable link to a particular establishment, the Secretary of State needs to have the ability to step in, in extremis.

It is often forgotten that charities receive public money, and no charity is more likely to receive public money than an NHS hospital charity. Such charities are more likely to receive grants for their performance of services, projects, equipment and so on. We therefore have a particular interest in NHS charities.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I support my hon. Friend’s amendment because it is an emergency provision that would be rarely used. From the tone of the debate, there is an impression that the Secretary of State would use it the whole time. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would probably not be used more than once in 10 years?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right. Proposed subsection (2B) in amendment 1 provides that the Secretary of State would be allowed to use the powers only by permission of the House. I am with my hon. Friend in his desire to protect the House’s privileges and powers. I did not get elected to give the Government a free run. When the good people of North West Hampshire elected me, they placed two votes: one for a Government and the other for somebody to hold them account. I will try to do that job. Should the Secretary of State wish to step in, he would have to lay a statutory instrument before both Houses of Parliament and seek their support. It could not be done easily, on a whim or through a signature on a piece of paper. It would require debate and examination, and need all of us to do our job of scrutiny and reach a settled decision to allow him to step in. I recognise that it is a fundamental step and that an element of separation should be maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2 provides that those regulations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which we consider to be the appropriate level of public scrutiny in this case. Any regulations made under this power would be simple and technical, transferring all the trust property held by the appointed trustees back to the NHS trust or NHS foundation trust to which they were appointed. We do not think that such regulations would require active debate in both Houses or a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. The National Health Service Act 2006 contains several equivalent powers for the Secretary of State to transfer trust property between NHS bodies by means of secondary legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure, as the regulations in clause 2 would be. I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that an affirmative procedure is not required in this regard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, and I am more than happy to accept it.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank my hon. Friend. It gives me great pleasure, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, to receive such a note of approbation from him, given that he is rather expert when it comes to Friday sittings and these technical amendments. I am honoured, indeed, by his intervention.

On amendment 9, my hon. Friend took the opportunity to praise a local charity in his constituency promoting the use of defibrillators. In common with other hon. Friends who drew attention to this, I thank his local charity for its work on this important undertaking. I am glad that, as has been mentioned, the Chancellor was able to give £1 million to this important cause, which is working with the British Heart Foundation to bring far more defibrillators into public places in North East Somerset and far beyond.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question about the use of the NHS logo. I know from his contribution on Second Reading that he has interest in its licensing. I hope I can put his mind at rest by confirming that independent charities, including former NHS charities, can use the localised NHS logo of the NHS organisation for which they raise funds. Independent charities can arrange permission to use the logo, if they are working in partnership with an NHS organisation. We heard examples of local charities working in close partnership. In addition to heaping praise, rightly, on the Torbay Hospital League of Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned a Paignton charity working closely with a local NHS body. That is a good example.

The NHS logo generates high degrees of trust and reassurance among patients and the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) drew out in his contribution. We all understand why. We can all cast our minds back to the many occasions when that trust and reassurance have been in the public spotlight. I think, in particular, of the opening ceremony of the Olympic games. Who can forget the spelling out of “GOSH”? I am sure will hear far more about that admirable institution on Third Reading.

The use of the NHS logo is carefully controlled because it indicates that the NHS is in some way accountable and responsible for the services or materials to which it is applied. It is a registered trademark and an important public brand, so there are strict rules governing the correct use of the NHS identity. Generally, the NHS identity guidelines do not permit independent charities to use the NHS trademarks in their names or promotional material, as it could cause confusion and give the public the incorrect impression that a charity is officially endorsed or organisationally linked to the NHS, as many hon. Friends have said. As I have mentioned, however, independent charities can seek approval to use the NHS logo, if they are working in partnership with it. An independent charity will often set up an agreement with a local NHS organisation to fundraise on its behalf. We have already heard some examples of close, long-standing links between charity organisations and the NHS, and I am sure that Members will be aware of many more in their constituencies. It is possible for a local organisation to use the NHS’s identity in a supporting position with respect to promotional and fundraising materials—on the proviso that there is a local agreement in place for the fundraising activity to benefit solely local NHS services.

It is fair to say that there has been some slightly wild speculation in the course of our debate about some of the far-flung places to which people might go, using NHS charity resources inappropriately. It is important to ensure that the association with the NHS is guarded. From a legal perspective, however, the amendment would make no change to the current position. The Secretary of State is the registered owner of a number of NHS trademarks. As such, the Secretary of State is already free to license trademarks to independent charities in accordance with his statutory powers and duties. Furthermore, as the registered trademark owner, the Secretary of State may set the terms of any such licence as he chooses, including specifying the notice period required for termination—an important power, as I think Members would agree. In some circumstances, it may be more appropriate to make provision for a licence to be terminated at shorter notice or immediately—where, for example, a charity is in breach of the licence terms.

On that important point, about which Members were rightly expressing a degree of concern, I hope I have been able to provide reassurance. I hope, too, that I have provided clarity as well as reassurance on some of the other amendments.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I ask the Minister about one further point? When the NHS logo is licensed to small charities, I hope the process will not be too bureaucratic or onerous for them and that the application of the regulations will not be too pettifogging.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend is wholly consistent on this issue. Since he came here in 2010, I have been delighted to hear him stand up on many occasions for people who find overbearing state bureaucracy at either the national or local level. He seeks to ensure that any such bureaucracy is always light touch and appropriate. He rightly seeks reassurance and I think I can give him that. We would never seek to make the process overbearing. It would obviously be inappropriate, given that the central drive of the first part of this important private Member’s Bill is to bring clarity and to avoid double-regulation. It would be nonsense if any aspect of what we have discussed this morning added to the bureaucratic burden. We are trying to head in an entirely different direction—one of which I hope my hon. Friend, given his long-standing role as a champion in this House, will approve.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I shall speak to amendment 56 and the Government manuscript amendment to it. Although I added my name to the amendment, the original proposal came from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who apologises for not being present in the Chamber today. As the House will appreciate, his constituency has been very badly affected by the weekend floods.

I wish to make a few points on my hon. Friend’s behalf. Amendment 56 provides for a very modest change that would give greater flexibility both to the Government and to local communities. Where there is a clear wish for change, a county could achieve it in a much more efficient manner and without too much delay. The amendment seeks to build on existing legislation in relation to changes to boundaries. I am talking about not radical change, but easier changes that both Government and local people support.

My hon. Friend hopes that these changes can be applied to his own county of Cumbria, where they are badly needed and widely supported, as they would improve local government and lead to cost savings. I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke in favour of this amendment. I hope that that sentiment will also be expressed by the Opposition Front Bench and that we can proceed on this matter with consensus. With that, I hope that the House will support this amendment.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wish to support some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and to try to give more information to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to explain why I am in favour of first past the post.

Briefly, let me talk about referendums and why I have attached my name to amendment 2. It seems that there is a slowly developing theory of referendums in this country that fits in with a parliamentary democracy. It is that those of us who sit in this House, who admire this House and who approve of how our constitution works, have a great affection for the understanding that we are representatives and not delegates, and that we are here to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people for a five-year period before returning it to them in toto at the end of that period. That is the well-established constitutional position. Against that, and in sympathy with that, there is a developing view of where referendums are useful, and moving from useful to becoming essential; and that is to do with the structures of government. The reason for that is that there is a permanency in the structures of government that outweighs the normal level of legislation with which we deal.

It is quite right that Scotland had referendums on its decisions on independence and on establishing a Parliament in the first place, because those are effectively permanent decisions, irreversible and unchangeable without the consent of the Scottish people. Likewise in Wales, the Welsh have had referendums on their Assembly, as has Northern Ireland, too. With regard to local councils and changes, if the structures are to work they need to go with the grain of popular consent. Authority, when it is used, needs to have a legitimacy that is based in democratic consent. When that consent was not given in the Local Government Act 1972, there was a great deal of hostility to what was done because it did not meet the requirements of local people. Against that evolving doctrine of referendums there is, inevitably, the Government’s view of referendums, which I characterise, perhaps unfairly, as being, “We will have referendums when we think we will win them, but if we think we won’t win them, it is a bit too dangerous, so we won’t take the risk.” It is a pity that the Government have not taken the risk with these new structures. Let us take the Mayor of London as an example. The Mayor of London has enormous popular consent, even when it was Ken Livingstone, let alone now that it is the great man, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

[William Wragg]

The London example is a case in point. That system of mayoralty was assented to by the population at a referendum.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is exactly the point I am making. That is why there has been affection for the Mayors, even from people who do not share their political sympathies. It is felt that they have a legitimacy to do what they have done. I voted against having a mayor for London, because I thought that another tier of government was quite unnecessary; we already have far too many. However, because London had a referendum and the referendum was won, there is a legitimacy. The great city that I neighbour, the city of Bristol, elected a mayor, having decided to do so through a referendum. Therefore, the people of Bristol have invested in that office and given legitimacy to it. I cannot think of anything worse than having an elected mayor covering Somerset, and I would oppose it tooth and nail. The watchwords will be, “Somerset will fight, and Somerset will be right.”

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I suggest something that might be even worse to my hon. Friend? It is that the outcome of the amendment might be that there is no mayor, but a new combined authority with devolved powers being run by a politburo of leaders of other councils, the policies of which people will have no direct say in.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If Madam Deputy Speaker will indulge me, I compare that with the Council of Ministers in the context of the European Union. It has democratic legitimacy derived from its constituent parts, whereas a mayor imposed, without a referendum, lacks that fundamental legitimacy. It is more like the President of the European Commission. To have a system that has an imposed mayor is to move away from legitimacy.

[Nigel Mills]

Just to continue that thought, will my hon. Friend not join me in having some concern that the people who will be taking the decisions, spending the money and exercising the power will not have been elected for that purpose, but for some very different position on a very different authority that could be on a much smaller scale?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not accept that. I am not a big-is-good advocate. I think that small can well be beautiful. The individual leaders of councils are the doughty defenders of the interests of the population that has chosen them, and they are in their way like Members of Parliament in that they represent a specific area and a specific interest, and they can combine with others to see how decisions can be made. I see no lack of democracy in a group of people coming together, each one of whom has an individual mandate. Indeed that can be a better democratic mandate than having a highfalutin mayor.

[Mr Graham Brady]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech very much and following it closely. He may be interested to know—he may already be aware of this—that in Greater Manchester, which is really the point of origin of many of the things that we are discussing today, the combined authority has worked extraordinarily well, and that those elected council leaders have worked very well together. It seems odd to many of us that we should move from a structure that is working well, and to which nobody has any objections, to the imposition of a completely different structure without popular consent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Imposing structures does not give them legitimacy. What gives them legitimacy is that they should be built from the ground upwards. Fundamentally, that is a Conservative view of how Governments are constructed. I am talking about the little battalions coming together to do big things jointly, rather than a hierarchical system that says, “We know what’s best for you.” That is the approach of those on the Opposition Benches. The socialist approach, as it is now, once again, a Socialist party, is about telling people what to do and giving them the figures who do it. The Conservative evolutionary approach is to allow people to come together, each one of whom individually has legitimacy to do things. I absolutely accept his point that combined authorities have worked by consent and that they do not necessarily need super-mayors or metro mayors put on top of them. If that is done without referendums, we will be back here in 20 years’ time—[Interruption.] I very much hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is still here in 20 years’ time so that we can discuss these important matters.

[Mr Skinner]

I have got a better chance of surviving a long number of years if we keep the NHS out of the hon. Gentleman’s and Tory hands. Keep the NHS public, and I have a chance—I am taking a gamble here—of making it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think the Prime Minister had any intention of making me the Secretary of State for Health, but now that he has heard from the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will not.

We will return to the legitimacy of these changes if there are no referendums. Although the Government might well push the provisions through and order these mayors to be appointed, if there is not that validation through referendums the component parts of the super-areas will chafe. They will say, “We are paying taxes to pay for the centre of a city to which we have no real link. We would rather be run from Whitehall than by these funny people in a town hall with whom we have no real link.” The referendum lock follows the grain of the developing referendum theory of government in this country and will ensure that the process is more successful in the long run. In opposing the amendment, the Government are probably being short-termist.

I promised the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that I would come on to the amendment about first past the post and why I have put my name to it. I am very grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove proposed it, and had he not done so I would have tabled my own amendment. I believe in first past the post as the fairest electoral system. I think that people get what they vote for rather than what they do not vote for. They get what they most like, not what they least dislike. The fundamental problem with proportional systems is that nobody gets what they want. Everybody gets something else, because the votes go off in all sorts of different directions.

[Mr Graham Allen]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the 50% of people in Scotland who voted for non-separatist parties got what they thought they were getting when they received only three Members of Parliament to represent them whereas the other 50% got 56?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. They got exactly what they wanted. They got a referendum that decided that they would remain part of the United Kingdom and then they voted for champions to come to this place and represent them constituency by constituency. That is how first past the post works. I wish that they had all voted Conservative; it is a great shame that they did not. The system worked effectively to represent what most people in Scotland wanted. Sadly, most people in Scotland did not want the Conservatives to have 56 MPs. How that aberration could have come about, I do not know, and I am sure that in time it will change.

[Nigel Mills]

It was worse in ’97.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was indeed worse in 1997.

However, the majority in each constituency, or at least a plurality in each constituency, got exactly what they voted for and not one of the three Unionist parties in those constituencies was able to compete. That seems perfectly fair.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only reason why the Scottish Conservative party is present in the Scottish Parliament is proportional representation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was going to say that it was because of my efforts in Glenrothes in 1997, but I think that that would be untrue. I would be accused of misleading the House. I think it is to do with the fact that we have a fantastic leader of the Conservatives in Scotland and an inspired Secretary of State. The two combine to make Conservatism in Scotland the coming force. However, that strays from the main topic of why first past the post is a preferable system. It is important to have a victory for the most popular rather than the least unpopular. It encourages the most charismatic figures and people who have a strong party affiliation to stand. That is important.

I am not a great believer in having huge numbers of independents running our great cities. There is a danger that if we take people outside the party system they do not have a particular badge to stand under and it is not clear at the outset what they represent, other than independence. They have no fall-back as regards having someone senior in the political system to get in touch with to guide them.

[Norman Lamb]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I totally disagree with everything that he is saying. Does he not think that there is a risk that with first past the post in local government one can end up with a complete one-party state, as has happened in some Liberal Democrat councils, some Conservative councils and, indeed, some Labour councils? The net result is a sort of rotten borough with poor local government and no accountability.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Having one party in office forever can create its own difficulties, but I think that that is less likely to happen with a mayor than with a local council with individual councillors. A mayor stands both as a party figure and as an independent figure. That is undoubtedly the case with the mayoralty for London, and the Conservative and Labour figures who have fought successfully have done so by being semi-detached from their parties and building up their personal following. That would happen in other places, but it clarifies the issue and is more straightforward if we have first past the post and whoever is most popular wins.

To go back to the developing theory of referendums, I also think that first past the post is what the British people voted for. We had a great referendum under the coalition Government of which the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was a very distinguished part, and in that referendum the electorate blew a very large raspberry at electoral reform. They said that they did not want the alternative vote system but wanted to stick to first past the post.

For a Government who have an opportunity to correct what was previously put in place and to go for what the electorate not only want but have voted for is fundamentally democratic and proper, and ties in with my original theory of referendums. It is the right of the people to decide who governs them as well as the structures of government and how they relate to them. The individual Members, mayors and councillors are then entitled to operate those levers between elections. How people vote, for whom they vote and the regions for which they vote ought to be determined by referendums. We have had one in support of first past the post, and we have had one supporting a mayor for London and a mayor for Bristol. It is a mistake to ignore the very first of those votes and an error not to give people the right to vote on their own structures in future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I recognise what he says. There are complexities in devolving such matters to local government, but I am sure he will continue to argue, as such matters are discussed, that he wants those complexities dealt with in reality, rather than just in theory.

New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), would provide a cooling-off or probationary period for the conferral of functions from a local authority to a combined authority. I know that my hon. Friend has raised that matter in discussions during previous stages of the Bill, and that it is of great interest to him.

I can see the attraction that the flexibility to reverse a conferral of powers might have for an individual local authority, but there are considerable downsides. The very fact that the combined authority might be responsible for those powers for only a year or so might be conducive to little action being taken under what would perhaps be perceived as a temporary conferred function. The combined authority would almost certainly be reluctant to base any investment or other major activity on a function that it could lose in a few years’ time. Moreover, partners, whether businesses or other public bodies, would almost certainly be reluctant to enter into arrangements that could so quickly be reversed. We consider, therefore, that it would be very doubtful that activity within that probationary or cooling-off period of any such conferral of powers would give a realistic picture of how a combined authority might operate in the future or of the full range of improvements that might be achieved.

We consider that a better alternative, if local authorities are not sure whether they wish to confer a specific power, would be for them to trial such joint working across the area of a combined authority through informal arrangements, such as a shadow combined authority or joint committee. Those models are available to local authorities and combined authorities without the need for secondary legislation to be made. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West not to press new clause 8 to a Division of the House.

New clause 10 seeks to reinsert the clause that was inserted in the other place to amend section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to lower the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. We debated that provision at length when we last met in Committee, after which we agreed to remove the clause by a significant majority of 95. The message was clear then and it remains clear now.

We have discussed quite widely the age of majority and the things that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to do or are prevented from doing by law. It has been suggested that because young people are politically engaged, and quite rightly so, they should be given the vote. That is a conclusion with which I do not agree. The debate has exposed the wider truth that there is a range of views, many of which are enshrined in legislation, that can best be described as encompassing the transition from childhood to adulthood. There is probably no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but it is at 18, not 16, that society normally draws the line.

Any change to the entitlement to vote must be considered properly. We should not make piecemeal changes to the franchise. We cannot make changes and simply assume that there will be no implications for other areas where our laws and our society treat 16 and 17-year-olds differently. The voting age for UK parliamentary and local elections is set at 18. The age that is used in most democracies is 18. The Government have no plans to change it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reminded the House last time we debated this matter that we have no manifesto mandate to do so. Recognising that the shadow Minister says that he intends to test the will of the House on this issue, I encourage all hon. Members to support the Government and oppose the reinsertion of this clause.

New clause 11 requires that the Secretary of State must, within 15 months of the Bill being passed, publish a review of the fire and rescue services affected by the provisions of the Bill. The new clause is not necessary. Devolution is about enabling local areas to determine how best their services are delivered. It is therefore only right that fire and rescue authorities, in agreement with local partners, should decide how and when to review and assess how the provisions of the Bill may affect fire and rescue services. I remind hon. Members that the requirements of the fire and rescue national framework will continue to apply. With those explanations, I hope the Opposition will not press the new clause.

Turning to new clause 13, we are already taking major steps to devolve local taxes and have only just set out plans for a radical devolution of fiscal powers. By the end of the Parliament, the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. For the first time in decades, local areas will see the full direct benefit of business rate growth in their local area. We will also grant new powers to directly elected mayors and to authorities. We will give all local authorities the power to reduce business tax rates to support businesses in their areas. As was confirmed in the spending review, we will set out detailed proposals in due course. In the light of that, I hope the House will agree that this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers, is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the shadow Minister will agree not to press it.

New clause 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to combined authorities on co-operation with peripheral authorities. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate. Before making orders establishing a combined authority and orders devolving new functions to such an authority, the Secretary of State must consider that to do so is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions in the area or areas to which they relate. Additionally, Parliament must approve such orders.

The new clause seeks to provide a further requirement about how, once established, a combined authority should go about the exercise of functions devolved to it. As with local authorities, combined authorities must have regard to all relevant considerations in taking their decisions. Just as local authorities cannot be blind to the impact of their decisions beyond their boundaries, nor can combined authorities. Neither local authorities nor combined authorities can be ignorant of what happens beyond their borders. We do not have these provisions for local authorities and it is the position of the Government that we should not impose them on combined authorities. Therefore, the new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate. I hope that the House will agree.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 were tabled in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West. The first of those amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State’s annual report on devolution to Parliament includes information on the extent to which powers that have been devolved to a mayor remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. Amendment 5 is a consequential amendment to amendment 4, while amendment 6 defines the phrases “combined authority” and “Minister of the Crown”. Although it is the Government’s intention that functions should be devolved as widely as possible, there may be circumstances in which they should be exercised either jointly or concurrently. With those explanations, I hope that hon. Members will accept amendments 4, 5 and 6.

If amendment 58 were accepted, it would mean that any transfer of functions to a combined authority must not be dependent on the combined authority having a mayor. In its intent, it is similar to the provisions of the old clause 3, which the Committee voted to remove from the Bill by a majority of 81. That provision imposed a specific requirement that a mayor could not be a precondition for transferring functions to a combined authority. As I told the Committee, that provision was at odds with our manifesto commitment, and amendment 58 is too.

In our manifesto, we committed to

“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”

We are not forcing this on anyone or on any place. Whether an area has a mayor is a matter of local choice. However, if an area wants to have a devolution deal of the scale and ambition of Greater Manchester’s, we do expect a mayor to be part of the deal. The effect of amendment 58 would be to stop our pursuing that manifesto policy. It would potentially put the whole future of devolution at risk of challenge. It is an amendment to which we are wholly opposed and that we hope will not be successful should the House choose to divide on it.

Amendment 2 provides that a combined authority mayor can be established only after a referendum. I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was, as ever, persuasive and eloquent, but on this occasion, I am afraid to say, he was not quite persuasive enough. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of such referendums and to consult the Electoral Commission before doing so. We had an interesting debate on the first day of Committee about this very matter. I recognise that I was repeatedly challenged by Members from both sides of the House about the degree of choice for local areas.

While I do not seek to reopen that debate, I must make it clear again that the Bill does not give the Government the power to impose devolution or a model of devolution in any area. The decision to approach the Government with a proposal for the devolution of powers and the decision on the degree of devolution required are entirely local ones. By the same token, we have always been clear that where areas make that approach to negotiate the significant transfer of powers, like the powers agreed with Greater Manchester, we would expect a mayor to form part of the mix, as that provides the levels of leadership and accountability that are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of such a deal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the Minister clarify what he has said about nobody being forced to go down this route? Does that mean that, under amendment 7, an objecting constituent council would not be part of the mayoralty?

[James Wharton]

To clarify for my hon. Friend, areas will not be forced to be part of a devolution deal. If a mayor is part of a devolution deal and a local council does not want to be part of it, the council will not be forced by anything that the Government intend to do or can do to be part of that combined authority or devolution area. It is a matter of building local consensus and giving local people the choice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

So if a council is part of a combined authority and it objects to there being a mayor, but the majority of members of the combined authority vote for a mayor, the council will leave the combined authority and will not be any part of any combined authority or of the mayoralty.

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is correct. Where an existing combined authority and a number of the local authorities within it want to make a deal but one or more do not, we want flexibility so they are not forced in any way to enter into a deal with which they do not agree, but are instead able to leave and not be part of that devolution deal.

Holding a referendum on the narrow question of whether there should be a mayor risks not fully recognising the choice that is to be made. It also fails to recognise the role of those who have been elected by people of their area to represent them, and to make the necessary decisions to safeguard their wellbeing and the prosperity of the area. Of course, those democratically elected locally will want to have regard to the views of communities and businesses in their area, and of the voluntary sector and those who live and work there, but we should have the confidence in those who are elected in those areas to grasp the opportunities that the Bill makes possible, to consider the degree of devolved power that is appropriate and deliverable in each of their areas, to enter into negotiations with Government and, in what is a fast-moving environment, to take the decisions that will best deliver the economic growth and development they have already been mandated to deliver.

Junior Doctors Contract

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The evidence is there in what has been published about the details of the contract. It was published in the press because it was not possible to get it to the BMA as it was not negotiating. It includes an upper limit of working hours of 72 hours in a seven-day period, when it was previously 91; four consecutive night shifts instead of the current seven; five consecutive day shifts instead of the current 12; and greater flexibility over rosters. That is self-evidently safer than the existing system. One reason we are where we are is that the BMA and others recognise that the old contract does not deliver the safety that is necessary. Those sort of changes will make the contract safer. That is self-evident.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend saw the report in yesterday’s Daily Mail that said that under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, it would be illegal to take on locums in place of striking doctors. Does he agree that if that is true, the law should be changed?

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I completely agree that every doctor and nurse, and every NHS worker goes beyond the call of duty—not just at Great Ormond Street, but in hospitals throughout the country. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them for the work they do.

J. M. Barrie made a very generous and powerful donation when he gifted the rights from “Peter Pan” to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. I am sure the renowned author would be cheering from the Gallery, if he could, to hear that his wishes are to be continued through the mechanisms of this Bill.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Barrie had better not cheer from the Gallery; if he did, he would be ruled out of order.

[Maggie Throup]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater knowledge of this place.

It is only right that every effort is made to ensure that the moneys available through the rights are used for the original intended purpose. I am sure that the parents and patients at this world-leading hospital will be backing this Bill, as they can see and experience first-hand how important additional charitable donations are to the workings of this hospital. The Bill provides for much-needed changes to legislation, and I will support it in the Lobby today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Much has been said about the importance of a work of literature with the status of the novel “Peter Pan”. We are, of course, entering the panto season. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) told us earlier about the number of performances of “Peter Pan” that would be taking place around the country, and I note that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wearing the ruby slippers of Dorothy from “The Wizard of Oz”. The Epping Forest Empire Theatre will doubtless present a sterling performance at some point during the Christmas season.

I support the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on introducing it. Underpinning its proposals is, of course, the Government’s commitment to localism and devolution. Many of us who have read the Bill will probably have been rather surprised that the opportunity to appoint trustees is a reserved power of the Secretary of State for Health, because one would automatically assume that trustees who are involved in their local hospitals would be drawn from the local community, and appointed by people with local knowledge and expertise. In that respect, the Bill is a very important measure.

The safeguard that I sought to draw out from my hon. Friend in an earlier intervention is crucial. In no way does this newfound independence of appointment allow trusts to move away from their core and original purpose. They cannot all look at the Racing Post and decide that Lucky Lad in the 3.10 on Saturday is the favourite, and the fact that the horse has only three legs and the jockey has a withered arm is neither here nor there—they are going to put all the trust funds on Lucky Lad. That cannot happen, which I think is a very important safeguard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

At the very mention of Lucky Lad, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent explanation of what the Bill would do. Ordinary charities are not, of course, allowed to put money on Lucky Lad in the 3.10 at Uttoxeter, or wherever it may be. I hope that that is not a widespread problem, but if it is, my hon. Friend should bring it to the attention of the Charity Commission.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the role of trustees. As a trustee of a charity myself, I shall ensure that my copies of the Racing Post— well thumbed as they are—are not brought into any more trustee meetings. It is also important to point out that the Charity Commission will continue to have oversight. I think that that addresses the rather waspish comment made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who fills a seat that was taken by a most distinguished predecessor. Richard Shepherd was a wonderful Member of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. He believed so much in this institution, and we should all rejoice at the fact that my hon. Friend now takes his place and is showing herself to be a serious parliamentarian, committed to the processes of this House.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not here last week when a new tradition began, which I would like to continue. It is that of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carries out the ballot so that my hon. Friend should have come high enough up it for her Bill to come fourth. He carried out this draw with such characteristic efficiency and in such a workmanlike fashion that her Bill came out low enough down to be high enough up for it to be debated today. That is a very considerable achievement.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Simon Hoare]

I asked my hon. Friend to give way just to give the House pause to recalibrate itself as it gets used to the idea of him welcoming anything that is new.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; occasionally there are innovations that are welcome, and this is one of them. For those who do not know, I should add that in the draw No. 1 used to be done first but now No. 20 is the Bill done first. It is like a game show: it brings more tension and atmosphere into the proceedings. That is how it has worked and how the Bills have come out in the way they have.

This is a superb Bill. It is the reason why private Members’ Bills exist, because it is deregulating. It is such a wonderfully Tory Bill. It is a properly Conservative Bill, because it takes—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, but I could not quite hear what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was saying from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene.

Why is it such a wonderfully Conservative Bill? It is because of its fundamental deregulatory nature. We have built up a state where more and more powers have been gathered to the centre, where Whitehall has the rule over all it purveys. It tells people what they must do. When it says jump, people have to say, “How high?” It was of course a Labour Cabinet Minister who said, “The fact of the matter is the man in Whitehall really does know best.” It has to be said that that was in 1947, but the fundamental principle underpinning what the socialists believe remains the same: that control should be centralised; that if instructions and diktats come from on high, the government of the country will be better run; and that individuals are not the people who can best take charge of this.

We, as Conservatives, reject that fundamentally, and it is this philosophy that underpins the Bill. We take the view that the millions of random decisions taken by individuals over how they should lead their lives means better decision making, better allocation of resources and a more contented and unified society overall. By taking power away from the Secretary of State—removing appointments from his control—the Bill allows every charity across the country that is involved in supporting the health service to set out what is appropriate for its community, for its region, for its county and for its area. In Somerset, we may well want different approaches from that which is suitable for the centre of London. Different approaches will be wanted in Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Surrey. Even in Gloucestershire they may have some thought as to how they wish to approach these things. [Interruption.] And in Hampshire, that fine county. Hampshire, one of the great counties, which was on the right side when Alfred beat Guthrum, is always to be admired in these contexts. These charities will decide what is appropriate and suitable for them, how they appoint and whom they have.

One of my colleagues speaking earlier, I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was talking about the risk that people would be appointed for nefarious political purposes, and of course that is what has always happened. In the 18th century, it was called jobbery. I always thought that was a good word because it so nicely encapsulates what happens as we get that corruption of baubles. The Government are the owner and disperser of baubles, and there is a corruption built in, as they give those baubles, initially, not to their friends specifically, but merely to those who are not opposed to them. In the case of somebody who is opposed, it would be “going too far” to allow an appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. It really “would not do” to appoint somebody on the other wing of politics.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend shares my dislike of overweening Executive action. Does he agree that sometimes in this place, particularly on Report, too little time is given to Members to allow us to discuss the kinds of thing that the Executive wish to impose on us centrally?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says; it is so important that we have enough time. It is why Fridays are such a pleasure, because there is time to discuss a Bill in full and in the round, and to consider the principles underpinning it, the details of it, and what would happen to it if it were to be brought into effect. That is proper parliamentary procedure. I have such admiration for those great heroes of the 19th century—[Interruption]—talking of which I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my great and hon. Friend, an advocate of the 16th century, for giving way. Does he consider appointments to the House of Lords to be the modern version of 17th-century baubles?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker is giving me one of her looks. As much as I would like to discuss reform of the House of Lords, I would be ruled out of order. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must get back to jobbery, because jobbery and avoiding jobbery are at the heart of the Bill.

I was explaining how jobbery, when it starts, is not a deliberate corruption. It is merely the recognition that it just would not do to appoint somebody on the other extreme of politics. We can hear Sir Humphrey going to the Secretary of State and saying, “It would be a little brave, Minister, to appoint such a person who is on so different a wing from you.” The next time an appointment comes up, there is the thought, “Well, if I couldn’t appoint someone who was actively opposed, perhaps I should really only appoint people who are on my side”—in other words, our mates and friends. Thus we get to the heart of jobbery. Appointments are made purely because of somebody’s political colour and context.

In the primary care trust in Bath and North East Somerset which preceded the current organisations a local Conservative had a judicial review against the previous Labour Government to get himself appointed as its chairman, because he was the most qualified person and had been refused only on the basis that he was a Conservative. Therefore, the idea that jobbery has completely left the system is false, and so too is the idea that Governments are so high and mighty and Olympian in their decision making that they do not descend to mere political jobbery.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

My hon. Friend might like to know that examples of jobbery abound in Wales. It might be useful to look at some of the appointments made by the Welsh Government to the various public bodies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must remind the hon. Lady for the sake of good form—I appreciate that she has not been in the House for very long so I am not reprimanding her—that she must address her remarks not to the hon. Gentleman, but to the Chair.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant and crucial point. We want to get away from jobbery wherever it happens, and it is most likely to happen in areas where one party is in government for a very long time.

[Paul Flynn]

There is a current example of grotesque jobbery in the appointment by the Prime Minister of the Conservative Members of the Council of Europe, and three splendid Members, including the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), have been—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I really have tried to give as much leeway as I can this morning to this debate, but I cannot reconcile Great Ormond Street hospital with the Council of Europe. I am quite sure that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring some kind of analogy from “Peter Pan”, Never Land and the Council of Europe, he can do so, but I must warn him that it will have to be really quite narrow.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was an urgent question on the matter, and I do not think that there is any more for me to say on it.

Jobbery is a real problem. It comes more when a party is in office for a very long time. The system gets accustomed to appointing people who belong to routine consensus political views, and they are the ones who get the baubles.

Many of these charitable baubles are unpaid, but they come with a great deal of status in their communities, so there is a benefit to the person receiving them. It is right that such decisions should be more independent of the Government. It is right not just because of the ability to get away from jobbery, but because many people—those on the Treasury Bench will be shocked to hear this—do not trust the Government.

[Simon Hoare]

Shame!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know. The Minister in his seat is looking appalled at that suggestion, but it is true. Many people think that if there is any possibility of the Government getting their grubby paws on a little bit of money, those grubby paws will dart out and the money will be raked in. There is of course a history of Government doing that. For example, hypothecated taxes have been introduced for particular purposes. When the Government run a bit short of money, or find that too much is being paid in the hypothecated taxes, they dehypothecate them—they put them to another purpose. I am thinking of national insurance, which was introduced as an insurance scheme, and of the road fund licence, which was introduced to build our roads. Both of those were syphoned off by Governments, arguably for very good reasons, which I will not go into because they are too broad for this Bill. I merely wish to illustrate the point that charities need to be robust in spending the money on what it has been given for, and not on any other thing, and if they cannot spend it on that which it has been given for, they should give it back to the people who gave it in the first place. The reason that that is important is partly that we believe in the rights of property—this is a Tory Bill. If property belongs to a specific designated purpose then that is what it is there for; it is not there to be used for any random purpose that someone thinks is a good idea at some later stage. There are many good purposes, and there are many charities that some people think do less good things than the good purpose that they have thought up, so there is always pressure to reallocate resources in the way that a Government, or some authority, think is preferable.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is bringing his usual fairy dust to this debate. Does he agree that this is about people having confidence in the independence of the trustees, and believing that donations will be used exactly for the purpose of the charity? Furthermore, it is about removing any sense that those donations might be filling in for taxpayer funds.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because that is exactly the point. It is one of those occasions where rigour really helps. If donors feel that their money will be used properly, they are more willing to give. It is fascinating how charity law has developed in this direction in recent years. Historically, if people gave money to charities, they gave it to the charity for its general purposes. Then they discovered that the general purposes of charities included all sorts of jolly things, such as lunch at the Ritz, so increasingly they have given money for limited purposes, and the funds can then only be spent on those purposes, even within a single charity. For example, if people viewing this debate wish to make donations for the renewal and restoration of this Palace, that money could only be spent on the renewal and restoration of this Palace; it could not be used for other purposes. Charity law has gone that way because it encourages people to give, as they have confidence in how the money will be spent. That is crucial for NHS charities, because there is this large pool of Government money, but it is never quite enough. We hear of deficits, and hospitals and doctors wanting more money, and all of that is a constant pressure on the health service.

[Wendy Morton]

The reason behind the Bill and for removing the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees stems from a consultation with the charities. The move to independence is something that the charities want, and it is a key part of the Bill. We are recognising that donations must be kept entirely separate from the money that comes from the Exchequer, and that it is also accounted for separately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.

I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.

It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.

I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.

What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my fellow Garrick member.

[Simon Hoare]

I hate to contradict my proposer to the club, but I think that A.A. Milne gave his royalties to the Garrick, not J.M. Barrie.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was confusing my authors of children’s literature. I got “Winnie-the-Pooh” right; I was just attributing it to the wrong man. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. So I do not have an interest to declare. I must de-declare my interest in relation to the topic on which I was talking.

Leaving such a legacy is a wonderfully generous thing to do, along with the flexibility in allowing the copyright law to be adapted so that one play can provide resources for a hospital, where the two come together. We all know the story very well. The childhood story of Peter Pan, ever-youthful—Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at you, I see the ever-youthful Deputy Speaker—is a great one to combine with a children’s hospital, which is there to care for children at their weakest time, not just those from London, but those from across the country, as we have heard.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I wonder whether he supports legislation that would automatically extend the copyright of written works when donated for charitable purposes. I referred earlier to various authors, particularly children’s authors, who may now consider with greater likelihood leaving their copyright to hospitals and the like after their deaths. If they knew that the copyright would be automatically extended for the charity’s benefit, it might encourage even more of them to do so. Does he agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is an interesting point, but probably, no, I would not agree. Such an extension should happen in highly exceptional circumstances, rather than made a general rule, because copyright law needs to be simple and fair. If it were used to advance particular charities, it would give an option on copyright that was ultimately extendable to a charity of the donor’s choice and we might end up with strange, effectively, avoidance measures to pass money through generations and extensions that had not been intended in the legislation. The length of copyright is already quite long beyond the author’s death, and that provides plenty of charitable donations in the normal course of events. Although I believe in rigour in what one believes politically and in trying to follow logic through to its end, the fact that “Peter Pan” is such an exceptional play and Great Ormond Street is such an exceptional hospital shows that there should be exceptions that make the system fundamentally more human. Therefore, I am in favour of such an extension as a one-off, but I would not welcome it as a general rule.

I have one question for the Minister, however, on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The trade agreement with the United States will look particularly at matters that relate to intellectual copyright. It might be important specifically to exclude “Peter Pan”—along with the French, who are excluding all their dodgy films, but that is slightly by the bye—because I can envisage a Hollywood studio making a film of “Peter Pan” and finding that it had to pay royalties in the United Kingdom but nowhere else, and that might conceivably fall foul of TTIP. I do not want to raise absurd difficulties for TTIP, which is a good scheme and is enormously welcome, but this is such an exception not just to our laws of copyright but to the normal international laws of copyright that it would be a pity if the system were not robust and could not continue. It may not be disastrous, because American film-makers are good, decent, noble people, and it is hard to think that they would be so mean-minded and damage their reputation, which is probably more to the point—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) needs to shout a bit louder—I cannot hear his sedentary interruptions, but they sound fascinating, and I wish he would share them with the House. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene. American film-makers would not want to damage their reputation by being aggressive on “Peter Pan”.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is damaging his reputation talking this nonsense?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If I were talking nonsense, Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order under Standing Orders that refer to a speech being both tedious and repetitious. I do not think that I am being either of those, nor wandering—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not need the hon. Gentleman’s help to know when nonsense is being talked in the Chamber. If nonsense were to be talked or repetition were to be undertaken I would stop it immediately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a side concern, but it is something that everyone in the House wishes to see—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Sometimes it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to work out whether an intervention or part of a speech is in order, but the hon. Gentleman has referred specifically to the next Bill, which is not in order. I caution Mr Rees-Mogg to be careful in his response to the hon. Gentleman, and stick to the Bill. By and by we will come to the next Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never sought to model myself on Nostradamus, so I am not looking into a glass bowl lit by candles to see what will happen in future. I am concentrating on the here and now—the present—and this important and beneficial Bill. I have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on introducing such a sound and wisely based measure that does something for the good of the whole nation and which will encourage the great vein of charitable giving that has provided so much for people across the centuries and shows what can be done beyond the state.

There is a feeling that everything has to be wrapped up and organised by Her Majesty’s Government: that welfare, health and education should come from the Government, and that no other parties should become involved. That is not true. We want to allow the natural charitable instincts of the British people to bloom, and they do. The British people are some of the most generous in the world, not because they are chugged and all those things, but because it is in their nature. It is their instinct to want to support good causes. That is why, across the country, we have wards bearing people’s names which have been built as a result of the generosity of benefactors who want better health care in the United Kingdom. That is why there are organisations such as the Wellcome Trust, which is a charitable organisation that improves the quality of medicine, and why people work from a charitable basis to develop new medicines and care, particularly palliative care, much of which is provided by the voluntary sector. I was a trustee for some years of St John and St Elizabeth, a hospital near Lord’s cricket ground, which provides the only hospice in central London, funded by charitable donations from those who feel that looking after people at the end of their life is a fundamental calling, and is not something that can invariably be done by the state.

Not every charge should go to the state; not every action should be borne by the state or taxpayer. It is right and proper that we allow charity to flourish and bloom, but then we have to put it in a protective envelope and protect it not just from this Government but from Governments to come, who may see that as a useful source of revenue and think that they can cut a few corners. They may find at the end of the year that they are a little short of money, which can be raised by selling off charities as assets. There are Governments who do those things: they run into financial crises and are desperate to do them. The Bill provides a statutory framework to protect charities. When people know that their money is protected they are more likely to give generously. That is something that has underpinned all economic activity in this country for centuries: the certainty that, under the rule of law, someone’s property is theirs to do what they like with, and will be used for the purpose for which they have given it if it is donated to charity.

Reinforcing and ring-fencing that and putting it into a short Bill is a magnificent thing to do. It is one little notch that the axeman is making, cutting down the great oak tree of excessive governmental interference. I hope that we will have more private Members’ Bills of this kind, and that the axeman will swing his axe more vigorously and the cuts—the nicks—become bigger and bigger until the overarching tree comes down and we have a greater and freer society in which individuals can do more from their own talents, their property is protected and the dead hand of the state is removed as far as possible.