Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for his speech. If he will let me say something slightly less serious, I hope that the Labour party will go on enjoying that banner from now until kingdom come.

Today’s speeches make up a tapestry. Nelson Mandela was one of the first people I knew who argued for a non-racial South Africa—not a multiracial one, but a non-racial one. I ask this question as a challenge to us in this country: when will the colour of my skin be as important as, but no more important than, the colour of my eyes and the colour of my hair? We have not got that far yet.

By chance, I was young and in South Africa when the National party won the 1948 election. I was there at the opening of the Voortrekker monument. I had returned to this country when Smuts died.

I have a memory from 2002, during the Queen’s 50th anniversary on the throne, of going to the chapel at St James’s palace, where the tree with 54 leaves representing the Commonwealth members was unveiled. There, we saw the sight of Margaret Thatcher two places away from Nelson Mandela. It was one of those things that brings life in a full circle.

Margaret Thatcher has been wrongly quoted as saying that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. She may have said that the ANC was a terrorist organisation. Given that it was involved in sabotage, although it tried to avoid the loss of life, that was accurate. If one reads the book by Lord Renwick or his article in The Daily Telegraph today, one will see that her instruction to her diplomats was to try to get matters resolved. She certainly would not have sent Robin Renwick to South Africa as our ambassador if she had been supporting apartheid.

My father served as our ambassador to South Africa in the early 1970s. The only doubt about his taking the appointment came when the Prime Minister asked the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, “Is Jim Bottomley so much against apartheid that he will be no use as an ambassador?” Shortly after that, my mother arranged for Sam Moseneke, the principal of one of the big schools in Atteridgeville, to come and stay in our house with three of his colleagues. They said, “Do you know, where we are from, we would not be allowed to stay in your house?”

One of the groups that helped to make a difference was the churches, or at least some people in the churches. I pay tribute to Trevor Huddleston, who was a colleague of my tutor, Harry Williams, in the Community of the Resurrection. Having been picked as a novitiate to succeed his predecessor in Sophiatown, he was observed by a young man, aged about 14, lifting his hat as a mark of respect to that young man’s mother. The young man was Desmond Tutu, who went on to make his great contribution to the movement before the transition to one person, one vote, and after that to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Oom Bey, or Beyers Naude, of the Dutch Reformed Church said that people had a greater duty to God than to man. He refused to backtrack when the Dutch Reformed Church declared that his view of apartheid was wrong. There are others whom I could name.

We have to understand that a minority of people in this country took an active part in trying to challenge what appeared to be accepted. This year, there have been three deaths, which have not been noted by most people, two of former Members of the House of Commons and one of a former Member of the House of Lords. The former MPs were Charles Longbottom, who was the MP for York, and Barney Hayhoe, who was the MP for Isleworth. Both were trustees of the Ariel Foundation, together with Maurice Foley and Dennis Grennan, who had been a president of the National Union of Students. Some argue that it was funded by tobacco money, others by the CIA, but what is known for certain is that it funded education in this country for many potential African leaders, from Kenya through to Southern Rhodesia. Such people were prepared to stand against the prevailing wisdom.

Occasionally, South African ambassadors—I would particularly mention Dawie de Villiers, the rugby player—would invite Members of the House of Commons, including Conservatives, to come and meet visiting South African politicians. I remember Ronnie Bell saying, I think unwisely—maybe it was a joke—that South Africa should not extend the franchise as it had not proved to be a very good idea in this country.

What was more important was the ability to explain to some of the more verkrampte members of South Africa’s political elite that they could not pretend that they were protecting southern Africa from communism. Every person in Africa knew that communism meant that people could live only where the authorities said they could live, that they could take only the jobs that the authorities said that they could take and that they did not have an effective vote. Why would any African, especially a black African, want to go communist? One answer, I suppose, is that the communists in South Africa were one of the groups that were fighting with Nelson Mandela to try to overturn the apartheid system.

The third person I want to mention who died this year was a man called Robin Plunket, the 8th baron Plunket. He followed David Stirling, who created the Special Air Service in 1941 and the Capricorn Africa Society in 1949. Robin Plunket, with his wife Jennifer, went on to support the society from this country before going out to Southern Rhodesia in, I think, 1957. For 50 years he developed employment in timber growing, milling and the like. His advice was important for many of our diplomats and Ministers. Such quiet people helped to establish a basis of trust that I hope will continue.

The last point that I want to make about Nelson Mandela—leaving aside the anecdotes about how lucky we were to meet him, rather than the other way around—is about democracy within the ANC. When Mandela’s successor was voted out of the party leadership by a democratic vote of the party, the person who succeeded him then waited until the presidential election to become President. As far as I know, the ANC is probably the only African political party in which that would happen. In a way, that type of democracy should be better known and more often copied.

On Europe’s responsibility, the tragedy for Africa, if our longest-standing ally does not mind me saying so, is that if the Portuguese had let go of their colonies in the 1960s, the French, Belgians and British might have done better. Countries from central Africa down to South Africa might not all have been western-style democracies, but they would have been much more western-leaning and much more tolerant of people in their own midst, and economic development would have been greater.

I almost started by mentioning Trevor Huddleston, and I end with his “Prayer for Africa”:

“God Bless Africa;

Guard her children;

Guide her leaders

And give her peace.”

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Friday 18th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Byles]

That is an interesting point for debate, but I would argue that the Bill before us today could well be argued to be far more of an HR Bill—a human resources or housekeeping Bill to tidy things up by introducing relatively modest methods to allow those who wish to leave the other place to do so, and to allow the removal of criminals, bringing the House of Lords into line with this House.

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

I understand that my hon. Friend does not regard this as a first-class constitutional Bill, but does he regard this as a first-class second-rate constitutional Bill? Will he deal with the difference between this House and the other House, were the Bill to be passed? Someone can be elected to this House and not come here, on the basis that they do not want to—Sinn Fein Members, for example, are in that category, at least at the moment. Would there be a similar position in the House of Lords, if someone decided to join Sinn Fein and said they did not want to come? Would they have to apply for leave of absence, because that would require them to recognise the sovereignty of our monarchy and our system? Has he considered that?

[Dan Byles]

That would be right. If there were a Sinn Fein peer who did not wish to attend, they would require a leave of absence; otherwise, under the Bill, they would cease to be a peer. I consider that there is a fundamental difference between those who have been elected to this House and those who, leaving aside the small number of hereditaries, are appointed to the other place. They are appointed to the other place in order to provide a service and a duty to their country, and if they are not doing so, it is perfectly reasonable for the House to decide that they should be removed and replaced with someone who will.

The reason why the current system has failed to meet its objectives is that it is neither binding nor permanent. Such an objective could, however, be achieved by the introduction of the retirement scheme provided for by the Bill, and the introduction of a scheme that would address the problem of non-attendance by certain Members.

Clause 2 provides that a peer who does not attend the House of Lords during a Session will cease to be a Member of the House at the beginning of the next Session. The provision will apply only if the Lord Speaker certifies that the peer did not attend at any time during the specified Session, and that they did not have leave of absence in respect of the Session. The provision will not apply where the Session is less than six months. Receiving a peerage is a great privilege, but it is one that comes with a significant responsibility: that of making an active and constructive contribution to the business of Parliament. Those absentee Members who fail to attend are not fulfilling their duty, and it is apposite and appropriate that they therefore forfeit their right of membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles]

I will be here, and I will be more than happy to take part in that debate. I wish my hon. Friend a good deal of luck with it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Has my hon. Friend covered clause 5 yet?

[Dan Byles]

I believe I have alluded to clause 5.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Has my hon. Friend taken advice from the Clerks, the Clerk of the Parliaments or even you, Mr Speaker, about whether the words

“shall not be questioned in a court of law”

will now be required in all legislation that we do not want questioned in courts of law? It seems to me that if Parliament is sovereign, what a Speaker or Lord Speaker does should automatically not be questioned in a court of law. If we put those words in one piece of legislation, will the courts then say that if they are not in another piece of legislation, they therefore have jurisdiction? That problem probably turns the Bill from a second-rate Bill into a first-rate Bill in importance, but means that it is not first-class any more.

[Dan Byles]

I am not sure whether to thank my hon. Friend for that last bit, but I am not a parliamentary draftsman and that wording was put into the Bill on the advice of the Clerks. His point is interesting, and I am not qualified to comment on it, but that wording was drafted by the system, so to speak. If we feel that it sets a dangerous precedent that might require it to be put in all future Bills, I would be more than happy to discuss that point in Committee and address it if necessary.

Voting Age

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the age of eligibility for voting in all elections and referendums in the United Kingdom should be reduced to 16.

It is a great pleasure to follow the previous business. I certainly support same-sex marriage and look forward to giving the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill a good and safe passage through this House.

Today I am talking about another reform whose time has come—extending the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds. There is widespread support for this proposed measure among parliamentarians from all parties. It is also supported by a wide coalition of youth charities, including the British Youth Council, Barnardo’s and the YMCA, as well as youth representation groups, such as the National Union of Students and, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) just mentioned, the UK Youth Parliament, which debated this very subject on these Benches under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker.

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

Those who listened to those young people debating the issue will know that they did not have to deal with all the dusty arguments that were used in the past to oppose votes for most men, any woman and people under 18. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the registration age for voting came down to 16, the average age for those registering to vote in a general election would be 18, because general elections do not come along every year?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, I will make a similar point later.

This proposed constitutional measure is not in the coalition agreement, because there is a difference of opinion between the leadership of my own party and that of our fellow coalition members, the Conservative party. Because the motion is outside the coalition agreement, the Government will not introduce it. It is down to the rest of us as parliamentarians to deliver this particular change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, if young people aged 16 were able to vote, perhaps their representatives here in the House of Commons might change their minds on smoking not being allowed until the age of 18.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Our colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have helped us a bit. The question essentially comes down to whether giving teenagers the opportunity to register to vote at 16 will do any harm. The answer is clearly no. Can it do any good? The answer is yes. On the point about smoking, only teenagers take it up: it is not an adult thing to do but a childish thing.

[Fabian Hamilton]

There is little I can add to the hon. Gentleman’s points. I agree wholeheartedly with them.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). It is of a minor and technical nature and it builds on the amendments to the Juries Act 1974 under clause 2 of the Bill. The Government are happy to accept the amendment, which, although it is technical and does not affect the substance of the Bill, is very important in terms of presentation because through its inclusion the Bill will more fully reflect the intention that we all share in this House of removing legislative provisions that prevent people from participating fully in society merely because they have a mental health condition.

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that there are indeed measures that would still allow a person called for jury service to indicate that they felt unable to carry it out. I shall be happy to provide any further information that he requires on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her support for the Bill. I was honoured to be asked to be a sponsor of the Bill. It would be wrong if Third Reading was completed without hon. Members recognising that some of the changes come from the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation. One of the roles of the holder of your office, Mr Speaker, is to allow issues to be considered and proposals to be put that benefit the House. We should thank you and your colleagues for that.

Taking medication for being over-happy or unhappy, or in some other way affected, should be as interesting or as uninteresting as consuming pills to deal with the pain in my heel or taking statins to deal with cholesterol. Instead of some people having their behaviour or misbehaviour described in the media, and then writing articles 20 years later saying that they used to be on drugs—illegal street substances—people should be able to be open now about the fact that they are unhappy or manic, or that they have a phobia or an obsession. I am not saying that everyone should lay out all their conditions, but it should be as easy as saying, “I see you have a broken leg or carcinoma.”

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House. It would be useful to have a major debate every two years on progress in mental health and mental illness. Hospital closures and accident and emergency wards matter, but each of us in our constituencies has people who are affected by unhappiness, mental health or mental illness. I pay tribute to the many people who are involved professionally and voluntarily in helping and serving them.

Perhaps I can conclude with a minor reflection on a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) about the people he referred to as the “Horatios”—I think Horatia would look rather better, unless the Department has sent front people out who look rather different.

Leveson Inquiry

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have expressed my own views about the assertions that Lord Justice Leveson makes about that. As I said, this is a debate about means, not ends. Let us dwell for a minute on the fact that this afternoon everybody appears to have agreed that what we need is tough, independent regulation of the press, where people are properly protected when things go wrong. The debate is about whether legislation is the indispensible means to deliver that.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on anticipating what was in the Leveson report and on anticipating that he would have a disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

How does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister think statutory underpinning by Ofcom would have prevented what happened in the past?

I commend to my right hon. Friend a book called “The Laughter of Triumph” by Ben Wilson, which is about William Hone, the man who got criminal libel laughed out of practical use. We ought to have a sense of proportion.

We must also protect the rights of newspapers such as the ones that campaigned for Stephen Lawrence and that almost certainly broke rules. If there had been statutory underpinning then, what would have happened?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Lord Justice Leveson advocates legislation for three reasons. First, he does not think that the system of incentives—the carrots and sticks that he is offering the press so that they all join in the new system—would work without law. Secondly, he thinks that that is the only way in which we can establish a credible process of “verifying”, as he puts it, the independence of the new self-regulatory system. Thirdly, and crucially, he thinks that there should be additional protections in law to enshrine the freedom of the press. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in return, to accept that it is perfectly rational to suggest that these things can be held in balance and that it is not a zero-sum game between freedom on the one hand and regulation that protects the vulnerable on the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes, that is one important part of a long list of issues that proprietors and editors now need to address. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NUJ. I think I am right in saying that the NUJ has come out unambiguously in favour of a model of statutory underpinning. It is important to remember, therefore, that there are working journalists, who care as much as anybody in the House about the freedom of the press, who none the less recognise that this might be the right way to proceed.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have enjoyed an innovation. I was going to ask whether the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) had asked whether he could make a statement after the energy statement earlier today.

I was going to go on to say, perhaps not as light-heartedly—which means seriously—whether the Procedure Committee should be consulted on whether Ministers wanting to make a second statement should require the leave of the House or whether that should be left to you, Mr Speaker.

Hillsborough

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. I think that the panel has done an excellent job, but, to be fair to it, it is not a coroner. Only the coroner can carry out a proper inquest. As I have said, there is very important evidence here for the Attorney-General to consider and to put in front of the High Court, but the panel cannot reach those judgments. Paragraph 60 says:

“It is not possible to establish whether a more effective emergency response would have saved the life of any one individual who died.”

But it then goes on to say, as I quoted in my statement, that

“a swifter, more appropriate, better focused and properly equipped response had the potential to save more lives.”

In the end, you need the precision of coroners’ reports to go into that sort of level of detail, but I think that the panel has done an extremely good job with what it had.

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

The Prime Minister has talked about getting it right.

Fourteen people were crushed to death around me at a funeral in El Salvador before this happened. As a Minister, I had to pay our respects to the 39 dead bodies at Heysel stadium.

Both at Hillsborough and at Heysel, people knew that the grounds were inadequate, and people had spoken about that in advance.

Could the Prime Minister say to people who want to be whistleblowers and alert people to dangers that they should be persistent and that their voices should be heard, and that when people afterwards find they have made a mistake, they should be prepared to say so early on?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right in what he says. I think that this will be one of the things that come out of the report. It has been said before, and it has been known before, that there were problems with the ground, but the full extent of the fact that previous events had had similar problems and that there were quite detailed reports about the failings at the ground will be a very important part of the report. As he says, we do need people to whistleblow and to point these things out.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an aspect of overseas voter registration. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I have tabled new clause 3 on an associated matter—to eliminate the cut-off for overseas voting. On this matter, I urge the Minister to bring forward secondary legislation, under clause 1(3), relating to regulations to introduce improvements to the registration system, which could result in a far higher number of participants in our elections at a time when the number of registered voters is falling.

At present, some 5.6 million British subjects live abroad, of which it is estimated that some 4.3 million are of voting age. But in December 2011 a mere 23,388 overseas voters were registered to vote, according to the Office for National Statistics.

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

Will my hon. Friend give those figures again? Did he say 23,000 out of 4 million?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend heard me correctly, but for the sake of clarity and emphasis, I shall repeat the figures: there are estimated to be about 4.3 million overseas citizens of voting age, a mere 23,388 of whom, in December 2011, were registered to vote, according to the ONS electoral statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

Absolutely, but we would be winning even if got a few hundred thousand registered to vote. What we need from the Government are assurances that they will not only look at the law, but have a long-term campaign to keep those leaving registered and to re-register those abroad. People abroad buy British newspapers, watch Sky television and take an interest in what goes on. I believe that they still have beliefs in what is right for their country. We could argue about modern democracy, electoral reform and proportional representation, but it ill behoves a party that has argued for PR to deny 4.3 million people abroad their vote.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on leading this debate. To have 10,000 service personnel in Afghanistan who were either not registered or unable to cast their vote at the last election was a disgrace—one for which we should all apologise. Rather than wait for this Bill to pass and for the regulations to be laid, we should ask Defence Ministers to make it the responsibility of adjutants in every unit to ensure that people are registered and to make arrangements so that voting papers get to them in time.

I am on record as saying that the move to individual registration is not necessarily such a brilliant idea. We know from Northern Ireland that it helped to reduce the inflation on the electoral roll, but we do not know how many of those who should have registered did not do so under the new system—but I do not want to go into that now, as it requires separate legislation.

The last time I spoke on voting I said that we have a responsibility to ensure that people in prison are registered to vote, but whether or not they can will depend on future decisions in the House. However, I would be interested to hear whether, if the law is changed, the Bill will allow for the registration of people in prison. If so, would that be done through individual registration, or would there be a responsibility on the Prison Service or the Ministry of Justice to make the arrangements?

The major group of people referred to by my hon. Friend are the more than 4 million people abroad who are not registered but should be. We must make sure not only that they can be, but that they are, registered to vote. That brings up another of my campaigns—that we need to get rid of the anomaly whereby half of our overseas pensioners do not get increases in their state pension while the other half do. The ones who do not receive it are probably the ones who need it most. We need to understand the effect of registering overseas people to vote, and it is right to ensure that people are not excluded.

One of the newer democracies is Tunisia—I have been there twice, first for its constituent elections and then to help with training for parliamentary activities. Tunisia has overseas voters and Members of Parliament representing Tunisians overseas. Whether we choose to follow that approach or to get people to vote in their existing UK constituencies is a matter for debate and decision. What is certainly not a matter of debate and decision is the fact that if we leave 4 million people—roughly 10% of those who should be eligible to vote—off our voting list, we will have failed. It does not bother me whether people are abroad because they have retired, because they are working there or simply for enjoyment. The fact is that they should be entitled to vote; it is our job to make sure that they can be registered. Having done that, it is then our responsibility to make sure that they use their registration and cast their votes.

[Frank Dobson]

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said. It seems to me—and, I think, to him—that it requires no change in the law for the Army or the Ministry of Defence to take the necessary administrative steps to make sure that our troops serving abroad get on the electoral register. No change in the law is needed; it just needs some action by those in a position to do something about the problem.

One further complication might arise. I strongly support the view that anyone registered abroad should be registered in a particular constituency. Because of the youth of a large number of men and women serving in the services abroad, some will not have previously been registered anywhere, as they would not have been old enough to do so. If we need a change in the law to help with service registration, it would be on that sort of issue. Generally speaking, however, certain people taking electoral registration for servicemen and women seriously ought to be enough to sort it out without Parliament being required to do anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, it clicked into view that the period he was talking about was that of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I was not aware of that, but I am now. I thank him for his intervention, which was helpful to me in giving the example another scenario in which this is legitimate.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Obviously voting twice in the same election is illegal, and the number of people who are thought to have done it must be very small. Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether a Member of Parliament from, say, Devon, who spent four or five nights a week in London and three nights a week in Devon for 34 weeks of the year would be required under his system to say that London was their main home, not the place that they represented?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman credits me with having a system—a grand plan—but I do not, as yet. My amendment relates to specific issues that I will deal with soon, Ms Clark, because I know that you will want me to move on. He is right to observe that there will be Members of this House who are on the register in two separate places, as indeed I was for a while. I stay in hotels in this fine city when I am up here now, so that no longer arises. Some of the people who have written to me feel that the short amount of time they spend in Cornwall entitles them to be on the register because they happen to own the property, and I have pointed out that I probably spend more time in hotels in Westminster than they do in Cornwall, and that I should perhaps be petitioning to get on the register on that basis as it is not a property qualification.

How do we check that someone who is on the register in two places is not voting in the same election on the same day in two locations or, as that would be pretty hard to do if they are some miles apart, postal voting in one location in the run-up to the election and voting in person in the other? First, one would have to find out the other location at which the person is registered. Subsequent to the election, one would have to get hold of a copy of the marked-up register for both locations in order to check, and then one might be able to put a case together that the person had voted in two elections. I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) suggested, people will say that this is a very rare occurrence, but that does not matter—the problem is that there is no way for anybody to check and challenge it. Whether it involves one vote, 10 votes or a few hundred votes across the country, it could still have an effect in some locations. I would venture to say that in some parts of the country where second homes are clustered, it will have more of an effect than in other areas, and it might therefore have an effect on an election result.

[Dan Rogerson]

What action happens when the police and the courts get hold of this is a secondary point, but a fair one. The hon. Gentleman is talking about people who were registered at two locations in his constituency, and presumably he looked for them in another location because he had suspected that that might be the case. However, when the second property is at the other end of the country it is on a completely different electoral roll, and there is no way that one would know which Mr Tom Smith one was looking for unless, at the point of registration, they were asked to declare the other properties at which they were seeking to be on the electoral roll. That is what my amendment would do. Electoral officers would be able to check that, and members of the public who wished to challenge whether someone had done this at another election would also have a basis on which to check. Both electoral registers are public documents; my amendment would merely tally the two up.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend is perhaps trying to persuade us that a person who is prepared to break the law and vote twice is prepared to tell the truth when asked if they are registered in some other constituency.

[Dan Rogerson]

There would be pressure to make a declaration at that point. My amendment would tighten up the system a little. I am not saying that it is foolproof, but I think that it would improve matters.

As I am sure that the Minister is aware, this is a probing amendment to raise the subject again. We had a briefing from the Electoral Commission saying that it understands that the Government may be about to reconsider the issue and respond in some way through regulation, which I would certainly welcome. The point that I am seeking to make, which I have made before, is that given that electoral officers in some parts of the country are seeking to be tougher on this matter and to question people’s right to register in a certain location, we need to provide them with the tools to ensure that the electoral register is accurate. As I have also remarked before, if we are moving to a system of holding local referendums on matters such as setting a higher council tax rate or establishing a neighbourhood or community planning document, it is important that it is the people who live in the community who vote. That is not to say that people who own property, businesses or agricultural land in the area may not venture a view or be part of the consultation, but voting is a very different thing.

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

The hon. Lady makes the point very well. Those who actually read the report will see that that is exactly what we were attempting to achieve. I think that we achieve it elegantly in our recommendations to IPSA on how to improve the way it operates, and we achieve it in quite a moderate fashion in the recommendations that the Government may want to take up in the months and years to come.

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

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about anything that we say here not being derogatory about IPSA staff, who face the same problems we do. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) to the answers in annex 1, which show that four out of five MPs think that IPSA is not effective in helping us to do our job. I tried to ring IPSA this morning, because I see that 99 times out of 100 it answers the phone within 60 seconds. I started calling at 9 o’clock; it is now half-past 12. That is three and a half hours. It is a bit like the train operating company that said, “No trains this morning were late because we didn’t run any.” IPSA will not answer the phone before 1 o’clock, and then we discover that the person we want is at lunch. If the amendment is carried—I am not sure whether it should be—will my hon. Friend try to persuade IPSA to pay attention to the detail of the report? Does IPSA have to be the only public service that for half the day is not available to somebody who wants to ring it?

[Adam Afriyie]

That is another point very well made. I hope that the direction of travel in the recommendations will precipitate such an outcome when IPSA reflects on them.

I draw everyone’s attention to the survey in annex 1, on page 66, which contains some telling statistics. We conducted a brief survey towards the end of the inquiry to ensure that we were picking up contemporary, rather than historical, points of view of Members of Parliament. There are some striking figures. For example, 81% of MPs do not believe that the board of IPSA has been effective in supporting MPs in conducting their duties. Even if the intention was to be supportive, it is quite telling that over 80% of MPs do not think that it is. Another fascinating statistic is that 93% of MPs are subsidising their work here. That is a contemporary figure from two or three weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. It is not in the report, but I accept it.

To return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—[Interruption.] Have I just promoted him?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

He should be right hon.

[Adam Afriyie]

Indeed he should.

The report contains two pretty uncontroversial recommendations, and again this brings me to the second misrepresentation. The first recommendation, which is for the Government, is that the primary duty of the independent regulator and its administration should be to support MPs to perform their duties cost-effectively and efficiently. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the constitutional historians we spoke to recommended that, as virtually every body in the world has that kind of line in their legislation. There is no time limit on that, so we recommend that the Government should at some point get around to doing that, and I urge them to do so.

IPSA is unique in being both the regulator and administrator of an expenses system. The second recommendation is that the law should be updated to enable the separation of those two functions. We are not saying that the administration function should definitely come to the House of Commons. We say nothing of the sort. We are not going to recreate the old Fees Office, which would be absolute madness, so that will not happen. However, we should be able to separate those two functions within the legislation, and I urge the Government—there is no need to answer this now—to make headway and look at how we might facilitate that while ensuring that the regulatory role is entirely independent of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie]

The report also makes that recommendation, urging IPSA to continue in that direction and, as far as possible, like most other organisations, to do some central purchasing and secure some wholesale agreements, as it has with rail travel. It is stepping slowly in that direction, but we urge it to move a lot more quickly, so that our time and that of our staff can be spent on constituents rather than on unnecessary bureaucracy.

It is very hard to see anything controversial in our report; it is incredibly moderate, calm and analytical. It also asks that IPSA be more transparent and explain to the public—on its website, or in a letter to us—its existing system of supplements for London, for the outer London area and for mileage; explain its rationale for those items, which it has introduced, because the public need to know why it has done so; and then to show very clearly the methodology behind the calculation that enables it to arrive at its figures for those supplements. That would be a very useful exercise, because then people might see how the numbers are calculated and where they come from.

In the second part of recommendation 17, we say that if the system that IPSA has already introduced to London and the outer London area were rolled out—so we are not making a decision on it, but saying, “if it were rolled out”—let us ask a third party, not us or IPSA, to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it saves taxpayers money and provides them with value for money. Even if it does, and it may not, that is not good enough, however, so we recommend that a third party evaluate whether the system continues to meet the aims of the 2009 Act. Again, that is pretty uncontroversial: we simply, and perfectly reasonably, ask for information, and for an analysis and evaluation to be undertaken.

Recommendation 17(c) may have caused a little concern. During my discussions with the Leader of the House and others, there was some concern that it implies that Members should take control of the expenses system again and “decide” what IPSA does. May I just be absolutely clear, however, and ask Front Benchers to reflect on the fact that, if that were the argument, I have made it clear—including in the amendment that I attempted to table—that that is definitely not the intention? If a word is slightly out of place, I would just say that the report is not legislation but merely a set of recommendations, and I apologise on behalf of the Committee.

The recommendation states that, once the cost-benefit analysis has been completed and we are able to work out whether the taxpayer would get better value while accountability, transparency and everything else are maintained, the House should express its opinion, which I imagine would be in the form of a motion or an early-day motion, stating: “In the opinion of this House, we think this piece of work is jolly good and IPSA should think about it.” We would not be overruling IPSA—nothing of the sort; it would be another recommendation in a report, and that would be it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will my hon. Friend explain recommendation 18, which states that MPs should have no increase in pay during a Parliament? I agree with that, but should it not read as IPSA setting, in advance of an election, what the pay will be?

When I searched for best matches for IPSA telephone operating hours, the search engine recommended that I go to the International Professional Surrogates Association, which deals with problems of “physical and emotional intimacy”. That is the problem we have with IPSA.

[Adam Afriyie]

I suspect that we have some of those problems in the House as well.

On recommendation 18, in the Welsh Assembly and many others throughout the world a figure is set for the duration of a Parliament. We now have fixed-term Parliaments for five years, but the Committee felt that, even if we did not, it would be far better to select a figure that remained the same for the entire Parliament. Then we would not have the constant moving around and unnecessary changes that we currently experience. The situation seems to work very well in Wales with the Welsh Assembly and elsewhere, so we recommend not that IPSA introduce the proposal, but that it look at it, so that we do not have stories every three months about another change—another shift in the level—and whether a figure relates to RPI or to CPI. Let us forget all that and just have a fixed figure that runs for a Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raynsford]

I assure my hon. Friend that I do not make a profit.

I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) not only for his introductory remarks, which have given a good and fair outline of the Committee’s report, but for all his work, not just as Chair of the Committee but prior to its establishment, in ensuring that this important issue is looked at in a clear and dispassionate way. I believe that, under his chairmanship, the Committee achieved that objective. It looked carefully, rigorously and dispassionately at the evidence and has come forward with recommendations that I believe are sound and sensible and should be taken up.

However, a few key messages need emphasising. The first is that, contrary to what has been suggested by some commentators, who have rushed into print to condemn the report, the Committee was adamant—no pun intended—in its support for the retention of independent regulation of MPs’ expenses. As the surveys conducted by the National Audit Office earlier this year and the Committee itself more recently have demonstrated, there is a very wide degree of support among MPs generally for the principle of independent regulation. Some 77% of MPs who responded to the latest survey agreed that independent regulation was important for restoring public confidence.

Having said that, the way in which the independent regulator has operated the system since May 2010 has been fraught with problems. Those problems provided a huge amount of evidence to the Committee in the course of its considerations. They are all documented in the report and its annexe. The process for making claims, considering them and paying expenses has proved slow and cumbersome. Many MPs have been left substantially out of pocket because of the time lag between expenditure and reimbursement. The system is far from cost-effective. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) highlighted, the NAO concluded last summer that 38% of claims at that time involved processing costs higher than the amount being claimed.

The system also imposes heavy burdens on MPs’ staff, thus diverting them away from their primary responsibility of looking after the interests of constituents. It also, of course, imposes burdens on MPs themselves. There is a great deal of evidence that MPs are not able to perform other functions because of the time that they have to spend on cumbersome bureaucratic processes. There is also evidence that MPs are deterred from making claims because of time-consuming and tortuous processes and the lack of clear advice from IPSA on what claims may be appropriate. There is also the fear of being subject to media and public criticism, either for claiming too much, or—paradoxically—for claiming too little; we all know of examples of minor items that Members feel would be held up to ridicule if a claim were seen to have been made for them.

Both the NAO report last summer and the Committee’s report, published now, demonstrate a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of MPs about the working of the system as currently operated—not, I stress, about the concept of independent regulation, but about the system as it is currently operating.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On dissatisfaction, I should say that the public interest is illustrated in paragraph 80, page 27, which points out that the cost of IPSA is £6.4 million. If we allowed £400,000 for processing payroll, that would leave costs of £6 million for other expenses of £19.5 million. I cannot believe that the House would allow that to happen in any other part of the public sector.

[Mr Raynsford]

I was going to come to this point later, but I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's view that the system is cumbersome and slow, and is not cost-effective. It is costing the country a great deal more than is necessary for a safe, rigorous and transparent system for overseeing MPs’ expenses claims.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, and declare an interest: I am not the statistician in my family.

I believe that those who follow such debates would be well advised to get hold of the Public Administration Committee’s sixteenth report of Session 2010 to 2012, HC 910-I, “Appointment of the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority”; the corrected transcript of oral evidence of 10 May 2011 of Sir Michael Scholar, Jil Matheson and Richard Alldritt on the appointment of the chair of the UK Statistics Authority; and the written evidence on the appointment of the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, which contains all but one of eight papers submitted to the Committee. I tried to find out what the missing paper was—it was “UKSA 04”—but “UKSA” also stands for “United Kingdom Sailing Academy”, “the United Kingdom’s Strongest Athlete” and one or two other things with which I need not delay the House today.

To illustrate that statistics need interpretation, I remind the House that if the UK Statistics Authority reduces its number of staff as it intends, by 2015, the number of staff it had in 2005 would be approximately 42% higher. That is to say that it is a 29.5% reduction from the figure of 2005. That has come about via a 16% reduction from 2005 to now, and there will be another 16% reduction from now until 2015.

That is an example of how, in three sentences, one can cast a cloud over people’s understanding, but what it basically means is that we need statisticians and those who read their work. That is why the UK Statistics Authority has a vital role in getting information from the Government out into the open in a way that the outside world can understand and interpret, and feed back to hon. Members in a way that increases our understanding.

I did not believe that it was right to combine the Statistics Commission and the Office for National Statistics, but that is done. Sir Michael Scholar has clearly explained how the UKSA arrangements are supposed to retain a separation between the regulator and the producer of statistics. I am willing to accept that, but I am still not very happy about it.

When Sir Michael Scholar gave evidence to the Committee with Jil Matheson on 10 May 2011, he made some points about the problems that he put to the Prime Minister in 2010. On page 11 of the transcript, Sir Michael said that

“before any significant changes could be made to the statistical capability of a Department, or any major changes to its statistical output, the Department would be obliged to secure the agreement of the National Statistician. That would be going back to a system that pertained in this country during the time that Claus Moser”—

Lord Moser—

“was head of the Central Statistical Office. I asked the Prime Minister if he would go back to that system, which would be something that he could do through administrative action without any need for legislation or for any additional expenditure. I also asked him if he would accept the proposals we had made on prerelease access…My third proposal to him was that he should give the Authority a place in the decision making about cuts in statistical capability across the whole Government. Recognising, in the difficult fiscal position that the Government were and are now in, that there were going to be cuts, we felt it was very important that the Statistics Authority, with a view right across the scene of the whole statistical system, should be brought into the process of decision making about where cuts should be made.”

It would be very helpful if the Government, now or shortly, responded to each of those points. We know about the pre-release access—progress has been made on that and it has not brought the roof down—but the other two points still matter and should be made.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to himself as an “anorak”—which I think is the only word we get from Greenlandish Eskimo, but I stand to be corrected—and in the hearing on 10 May 2011 he referred to time series. Sir Michael Scholar, the chairman, said, in effect, “I don’t think we can give you the assurance that we aren’t losing something that is valuable.” It would be wise if the Government and the new chairman, together with the national statistician—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I raised my concern about the loss of time series in the Select Committee in the last Parliament. I am also worried that the squeeze on expenditure may see valuable time series lost for the future and that would be a great mistake.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is not just the time series: we also need to protect the extra investment going into the longitudinal studies, which are a vital statistical treasury that can be used both prospectively and retrospectively.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the way in which he has chaired the Committee and to Dame Janet Finch, whose dignity helped to resolve an awkward situation. It is vital that we have a chairman who is fair, fearless and clear. That is not a comment on Dame Janet, but on Sir Michael Scholar—and I hope that it is one that we can make in retrospect when Andrew Dilnot retires. Those are the attributes we want from our statistics, and we also need them from the chair of the UKSA.

At one point, the House declined to give its support to someone for that kind of role—when Elizabeth Filkin was the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We paid a price for that. It was a parliamentary price, but there will be a national price to pay if we do not give our support to the chairman and the National Statistician. I therefore commend the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the nomination of Andrew Dilnot CBE for appointment as Chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has spoken in a way that has interested the House. If I say that he has managed to say in 23 minutes what he might have said in three, I hope he will take that as a compliment.

The essential point of the second motion is that the pay of the parliamentary ombudsman should be set in advance. There is a lack of clarity about whether that will be done before the appointment is advertised. Today, if the motion goes through, I shall be voting for the first time in 36 years for something that I think is seriously wrong. It is wrong to advertise a post and then negotiate with the person who is chosen and reduce the pay after the appointment has been offered. That is wrong. One can understand why the Government might have done it, but that does not make it right. Controlling spending is necessary, but to do it after an appointment has been offered is wrong.

I could say that many more times, but the fact is that this decision is one thing the House has done that is equivalent to what happened when Elizabeth Filkin was chosen to be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her number of days was reduced, her pay was reduced, her appointment should have been renewed because in those days it was not a non-renewable appointment, and in her last week this House agreed to pay her the £30,000 she had been underpaid during her years of service. If I may make a remark about a former holder of the office of Chair, when the former Speaker said in her memoirs that she did not approve of the commissioner or of some action, I thought that was wrong as well.

[Mr Jenkin]

I feel compelled to intervene on my hon. Friend because I do not think it is accurate to say that the Government cut the salary after the post had been advertised. They notified the House of Commons that they did not wish to pay as much as the existing salary and the recruitment panel was left in the invidious position of wondering how to advertise the post. The strong advice we received was that we should advertise a fixed salary, but the Government would not allow us to do so. We advertised based on the existing salary, but that was qualified and the candidates were informed during the recruitment process that it was subject to alteration. It was not a satisfactory process, however, so the spirit of what my hon. Friend is saying is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I congratulate him and the Government business managers on finding a motion that could get through the House. The essential point remains however—I think I am right in saying this—that the salary negotiation took place after the person had been chosen, and that is wrong. Although I was not part of the process, I understand that the candidates were strong and that almost any of those who were well-qualified to be chosen could probably have decided to take the job at no pay if it had been advertised at no pay because it is an important position of public service to the people of this country and, indirectly, to improve the government of the country. The essential point is that we should never again start negotiating with someone who has been offered a job in competition by saying, “At what level will you do it?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) referred to the UK Statistics Authority, whose report was published today. The report rightly says that its aims, with the Office for National Statistics, are respect—I do not think that aim has been met in this case—and working together to make a difference, which is true. Another of its aims is being proud of what has been done and always trying to do it better. In terms of trying to do things better I am not sure that, without a framework, it is correct for the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to decide rates of pay. We need to have a framework and then we can say, “This is what it would appear to be—it should be up or down on that.”

I ought to have started by saying that I approve of the selection of Dame Julie Mellor and that I would have approved of the selection of any of those on the shortlist because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that any of those who got to the shortlist could have been appointed with honour and distinction. However, let me make a less important point. Motion 9, which is being taken with the lead motion, refers to the rate of pay which is

“subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and it goes on to things we have discussed already. I do not think those conditions are right. We ought to say that the rate of pay for someone holding that office should not change at all, as with Members of Parliament between general elections. We ought to say that, although there might be some inflation or even deflation, the rate of pay for someone holding a position that goes from appointment to a point at the end of service, or, as for us, from one general election to another, should remain the same. I do not think that 1% in lieu of performance pay dignifies the office, is necessary or makes sense, but that is not to be amended.

[Mr Jenkin]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this but the problem is the legislation, which allows the salary to be determined only in relation to that of a permanent secretary. That is why I invited my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance that we will, at the earliest opportunity I hope, update the legislation.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I shall conclude my remarks by joining in the praise for Ann Abraham and the way she has fulfilled the job, and I look forward with anticipation to Dame Julie Mellor’s doing the same.

I do not think anyone in the House thinks it was the Minister’s idea to get us to this position, although he might have helped us out of a difficulty. I hope that he will say to ministerial colleagues that it would be better to get my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, and others together to create a framework so that we avoid any possibility of dropping ourselves into such a mess again. I leave aside the fact that Dame Julie Mellor is female and that the House has a record of saying to people, “We’re going to change the terms of the job and a woman will do it.” There are other times when I may be more explicit about such things, but there is an opportunity to say here, with approval for Dame Julie Mellor and disapproval for the way we got ourselves into this fix, that we expect the Government to take on their responsibility and, with others, find a way of resolving it for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

There have been sincere tributes from both sides of the House to the work of Ann Abraham, and it is clear that she has made an outstanding contribution. Her legacy will be a valuable and lasting one, not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, in relation to Equitable Life.

I am delighted that there is such consensus about the qualities of Ann Abraham’s successor. Dame Julie Mellor’s record as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission demonstrates that she is able to perform well in a high- profile and sometimes controversial role, and is prepared to assert her independence and authority when required— all crucial traits, I am sure we agree, for a successful ombudsman.

A number of Members have made points about the remuneration arrangements for the role. The Government make no apology for subjecting highly paid public sector roles, particularly those paying more than the Prime Minister’s salary, to a strict policy of scrutiny and pay restraint, and do not believe that this undermines the status and independence of the ombudsman role. As set out in the motion, Dame Julie has agreed to accept an annual salary of £152,000, which will be subject to the current public sector pay freeze. Thereafter, the remuneration will be uprated in line with the text of the motion.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not make this as a personal remark. Could my hon. Friend consider, with his colleagues, making a written ministerial statement any time the Government next intend to negotiate the pay after a candidate has been chosen?

[Mr Hurd]

That leads me on to my next remark. The Government have reviewed the way the process was conducted and have been quick to accept the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation that for future appointments to the role, the remuneration arrangements should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of that Committee before the start of the recruitment process. This commitment is reflected clearly in the Government’s motion.

My hon. Friend has raised the possibility of using any legislation coming out of the Government’s recently published open public services White Paper to enshrine these new arrangements in statute. As he knows, the Government’s proposals in relation to the ombudsmen set out in that White Paper are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to know what may be required in terms of legislative reform, but the crucial point is that the Government are committed to these new arrangements going forward and that commitment is clear from the terms of the motion. Subject to the outcome of that debate, should a suitable legislative opportunity arise in the future, the Government will give serious consideration to enshrining the new appointment and remuneration arrangements in statute.

[Mr Hurd]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate about this important role. I commend the motions to the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be possible for the Chair of the Public Administration Committee to make the point that he was hoping to make?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Remuneration)

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the salary paid to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be £152,000 a year, a sum within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries in the civil service as required by section 2(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended by the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976; and that this should be subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay; and considers that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee in advance of the recruitment process, and reported to the House, prior to the House being invited to agree to an humble Address on such an appointment.—(Mr Hurd.)