Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The Government are more than meeting their target to cut energy. It would be very good to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our energy for growth project, which will mean cheaper energy for government and will unlock blocked renewable energy projects throughout the country. It would be very good to hear him supporting that.

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

T3. I am encouraged to see that the Government are firmly committed to reducing the extent of their bloated property portfolio. Will my right hon. Friend please update the House on progress that has been made in this area this year?

[Mr Maude]

We have hugely reduced the amount of property that the Government occupy. The overall size of the central estate in 2011 alone fell by nearly 6%; the number of our property holdings fell by 11%; and we sold Admiralty Arch, which is an unsatisfactory office building but will be a very good hotel building. We are making enormous savings. We have achieved total savings of £360 million in annual running costs. If this had started when the Leader of the Opposition had my job, the country would not have been in the mess that we inherited in 2010. [Interruption.]

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). He said that there was a lack of evidence to support the need for change, which was reminiscent of where the proposal for 90-day pre-charge detention fell down. I believe that part 2 of the Bill threatens to undermine the principle of natural justice that demands that parties to an action should be given access to the case they confront. The Bill is deeply contentious, but some vital amendments have been made by the other place and I think that they must be upheld as a bare minimum, although I am sure that I am not alone in wishing that certain elements of the Bill should be removed entirely. On my reading, even as amended the Bill could result in members of the public losing their cases against the state without ever having been told why, in the Government’s being allowed to hide evidence of wrongdoing, and in officials being given the power to exclude the other party from court proceedings. As Reprieve points out, that effectively means that they could place themselves beyond challenge and hence above the law.

Last week, we heard about the Finucane case. We were all heartily disgusted at what went on—the collusion between the police service and the security services. God forbid, but if such a thing happened again, I believe that the Bill would make it easier for the state to prevent a family from suing in such circumstances. Have we thought about that?

Part 2 also sets out the Government’s intention to remove the courts’ power to order someone who has been involved in wrongdoing to disclose information—the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which needs to be considered in Committee.

I shall restrict my remarks to the proposed extension of closed material procedure—known as “secret courts” in outside parlance—to all civil proceedings in clauses 6 to 13. Responding to those provisions, the president of the Law Society and the chairman of the Bar wrote to the Minister without Portfolio saying:

“CMPs…undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public and will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms. These are both essential elements of the rule of law.”

I might also add, as others have, that they undermine the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

We have heard what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said. It has been vocal in its criticism of the legislation and has drawn attention to the

“troubling lack of evidence of any actual cases demonstrating the problem which the”

Government “asserts to exist.” At no point have the Government produced any known case that could not be tried under the current public interest immunity system, which I have seen operate over many years as a legal practitioner myself.

The special advocates memorandum says

“CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition...the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction...no such reasons have been advanced; and...in our view, none exists.”

It speaks volumes that the special advocates memorandum was so scathing about what the legislation purports to do; special advocates, of course, are better qualified to comment than anyone else. Among their concerns was the fact that the Bill as originally drafted required a judge to allow the Government’s application for a CMP if there was any material at all that could damage national security, even if the judge considered that the case could be fairly tried under the existing PII. The memorandum also makes the point that the decision on whether to trigger a CMP should lie with a judge and not the Secretary of State—an amendment to that effect has been carried and is most welcome; I hope that it will remain in the Bill.

Furthermore, under clause 6 as it originally stood, only the Government would have been able to apply for a CMP and not both parties. That is objectionable. The amendment on that is also welcome and I hope that it will be retained, although I am sure that the circumstances in which a plaintiff or claimant would apply would be limited.

I wish to refer to comments made by Lord Hodgson on Report in the other place. He said:

“I would like to see enshrined in the Bill a set of steps-hurdles…that the Government of the day will have to clear before they can resort to a CMP. The first is a requirement to go through the public interest immunity procedure, from which the judge can reach a balanced conclusion on whether the interests of national security require a closed court.”

In the same debate, Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent Queen’s Counsel, is recorded as arguing that

“a judge in an individual case should have a discretion, not a duty, to order a CMP.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1812-14.]

I urge the Government to take heed of those arguments and to uphold the amendments carried in the other place.

Perhaps the most disturbing provision of all is in clause 7(1)(d), which provides that, if a CMP is triggered, a court is not required to give the excluded party a summary of the closed material. Rather, the Bill as drafted requires only that the court should “consider requiring” that such a summary be given. Clause 7(1)(e) provides that the court must ensure that where a summary is given it

“does not contain material the disclosure of which would be”

against

“the interests of national security.”

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

I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the problem with his argument on clause 7 that there will be cases, if only perhaps a very few, where gisting will not be possible without revealing the essence of what needs to be secret? Therefore, is it not essential to retain some discretion for the court to “consider”, and does that not give more power to the judges?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously thought about this, and he may well be right, but at the moment we are all looking into a rather dark room as we do not know what we are actually facing. What he says is quite logical, and I accept it, but I remain concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, and professional colleague, the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell). I accept with alacrity what he says on the differing functions of PII and closed material proceedings, but information will be dealt with in closed material proceedings that could equally support the claimant’s case, just as there will be information that might undermine it. That is why it is important to support the amendment made in the other place to allow not just the defendant, such as the Government, but other parties, including the claimant, to make an application for the use of closed material proceedings.

Like my hon. Friend, I have spent many years in the criminal courts. I have, I suppose, been dealing with human rights; that was my stock in trade as a barrister prior to my election to this place. We did not really use the words “human rights”; every day we did a job of dealing with the liberty of the individual and the power of the state when it came to imprisoning and dealing with individuals who may have committed criminal offences. It was my life, my bread and butter, and my stock in trade.

It is difficult for me to accept any departure from the principles of open justice. I never liked being confronted with public interest immunity applications, whether I made them on behalf of the Crown or in relation to third party disclosure, or whether I found out about them later because I was not party to the application. These principles do not sit well with me. However, I learned a long time ago that politics has to start from the world as we find it, not necessarily the world as we would like it to be. No matter how idealistic I may be and how important certain principles are to me and many other Members, the realities of international politics and security will often conflict with some of the principles that I hold so dear.

The scenario that the Bill seeks to deal with represents one such conflict. In an ever-changing world, one certainty endures. We have more and more information sharing and the world is ever more interconnected, so greater and greater challenges to our national security are posed every day. We also live in an age when decisions of the state itself are rightly called into question. As a result of those proper questions being asked, we are seeing a rise in civil litigation mounted against the state by individuals who claim grievance.

All those factors mean that a challenge has arisen. Given the information provided by the Government and my understanding of the situation, the problem is not going away any time soon—in fact, it is going to get worse. The Government cannot hide behind inactivity when looking at that challenge; only last week, we saw a further settlement of a civil claim, in this case by the Libyan dissident Mr al-Saadi. That is but the latest manifestation of an issue that is causing real concern not only to the Government and security services but to those who risk their lives for this country and to the public at large who are rightly worried that millions of pounds of their money—our money—is paid over for reasons to which they and we will never be privy in any real sense.

[Simon Reevell]

Does my hon. Friend accept that a good way to avoid having to make payouts to Libyan dissidents would be not to be involved in kidnapping them and shipping them and their families back to Libya to be tortured?

[Mr Buckland]

We do not know that, and that is the problem with the current system. I would accept my hon. Friend’s argument if we had a system in which such issues could be properly tried, or at least tried in some second-best scenario; I accept that closed material proceedings are very much a second best to the principles of open justice in which my hon. Friend and I believe. However, we will never know—we will never be privy to whether the British state infringed principles of justice and international convention when it came to unlawful rendition.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I reassure my hon. Friend that once the current police inquiries are complete, the intention of the Intelligence and Security Committee is to continue our investigation, which we had already started, of the allegations about United Kingdom complicity in Libyan rendition and to publish our conclusions to the extent that we can.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and commend him and his Committee for their work in that area. It is something that I would like to know more about, as would many people in this House and outside. Sadly, the Gibson inquiry had to be terminated, or postponed, because of ongoing criminal proceedings. I very much believe that wrongdoing should be exposed, but, as has been pointed out, in the case of this civil proceeding we do not, and will not, know the precise merits or otherwise of the claim that was made against the British Government.

Much has been made of the views of Mr David Anderson QC, the Government’s independent reviewer on terrorism. I will spare his blushes. It is absolutely right to say that he, like me, is very much a reluctant convert to the limited use of closed material proceedings in certain cases where national security is very much at the heart of the claim. He makes the very important point that in referrals made by Her Majesty’s Government, we must put our trust in our judiciary to come to fair and balanced decisions on the material before them and to apply fairness not only to the Government but to claimants, because these questions apply equally to both parties in any such case.

Their lordships’ amendment to clause 6 opens up the limited discretion in the clause as originally drafted. I welcome that. It is wrong to say that there was no discretion before, but it was limited. They have expanded that discretion by the use of the word “may”. It is a much wider discretion than many of us in criminal practice have got used to. For example, in the sort of discretion that sentencing judges have in dealing with mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, the word used is very bald. “May” cannot put it any more simply. The amendment is very significant, and the fact that the Government have rightly accepted it eases many of the concerns that I and others had about the extent of the power of Ministers, in effect, to limit the court’s ability to disagree with a reference from Ministers.

That is the trigger, but it does not end there. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that a blanket then comes down on the use of closed material proceedings. I have great respect for him, but I do not think he is right. It is not a question of a blanket coming down, because the judge has a duty to look at each individual piece of evidence to determine whether it should be the subject of open proceedings or closed material proceedings. The judge will retain that important check and balance in looking at the evidence.

We need to put firmly to bed the notion that closed material proceedings are a silver bullet that will allow the Government always to be able to win—to successfully defend—these cases, because they most certainly are not. The recent decision by SIAC which had the effect of allowing the release of Abu Qatada is a notable example of that. CMPs were used in that case. The result was perhaps not popular in many quarters, but it is an example of the court being able to cope with the second-best solution and to reach an outcome that was, on a neutral interpretation, a fair one. CMPs can be a way for claimants to ensure that all the issues they want to see raised are properly considered by the court as part of the case.

Public interest immunity has been prayed in aid as a substitute for the process, but it is not; its function is different. PII relates to the extent and quality of disclosure, which occurs at a different stage from the fact-finding process itself. Material that is successfully subject to a PII certificate remains undisclosed to the party seeking it. There is no gisting or anything else. Redaction of documents may well happen, but that still means that the material sought by the party who wishes to see it remains undisclosed. PII has a practical effect, whether it is on the continuation of a prosecution in a criminal context or, as in this context, the continuation of a defence in a civil case. The choice for those at the receiving end is either to disclose the material or to stop the case. That means, as we have already discussed, that cases in which genuine allegations of wrongdoing are made will never properly be dealt with by the court. It is the justice gap that has been spoken about not just in this place but by eminent Members of the other place, most notably Lord Woolf, Lord Mackay and Lady Manningham-Buller, who all support the use of closed material proceedings in restricted circumstances.

As other Members have said, there is nothing groundbreaking about the use of closed material proceedings in English law. They have been used for some years, in both SIAC and the regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and in a way, as I have said, that cannot be regarded as resulting in manifest unfairness or injustice.

I would welcome clear and continued assurances from Ministers that, if future consideration is ever given to further extending the use of closed material procedures to other areas of law, it is this House that will deal with the issue and that there will be strong grounds to justify any further extension before we allow it to happen.

We live in an imperfect world. It is a troubled world where sometimes grim reality invades noble principle. This Bill is an exemplar of that, which is why I support its Second Reading.

European Council

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was not any open discussion about that issue, although I understand that Signor Berlusconi was in Brussels on the day of the European Council. My view is that these are issues for the countries in question. We can all have our views about the economic position of these countries, or indeed the political choices they make, but in the end, if we believe in democracy, we have to allow the Greek, Italian and Spanish voters to elect Governments who reflect their views. That is the way it has to work.

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

I warmly welcome the commencement of free trade talks between the EU and Japan. That is of vital importance to Honda workers in my constituency, and does it not also demonstrate the continuing importance of our membership of the EU in extending free trade across the world?

Leveson Inquiry

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

He is not Gordon Brown.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Particular attention should be paid to paragraphs 74 and 75 of the document, in which Lord Justice Leveson does not come to a specific conclusion about what to do if particular newspapers do not choose to sign up to any system of regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for this place to debate not only the principle of underpinning, which I support, but, for example, whether Ofcom is the most appropriate regulator or whether there should be a separate regulator for the print media?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is referred to in paragraph 75 of the summary document, but he needs then to go away and look at the bit of the very long report to which it refers. In paragraph 75, Lord Justice Leveson states:

“For the sake of completeness I have…set out in the Report the options that…would be open to the Government to pursue… in that regrettable event”—

that is, if the press do not agree to the principles of self-regulation. That would include pretty full-on statutory regulation, which is something we all want to avoid and Lord Leveson wants to avoid. Separately, my hon. Friend’s point about Ofcom is well made and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will think carefully about that specific issue, because it requires further thought.

European Council

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is a little bit out of date, as the Mayor of London has chosen a visit to India to make it clear how much he supports my policy.

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

As an enthusiastic European, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on continuing to engage closely and constructively with our colleagues, and on building coalitions and consensus? May I urge him, in the months ahead, to carry on working particularly closely with the German Government to make sure that the progress made this weekend can be consolidated?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly continue to do that work. On the issue of the EU budget, I think there is a good reason why that coalition should stick together and push hard for a budget that, yes, is about growth, but comes in far lower than where it is today. I will work very hard to try to make that happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Generosity of spirit gets the better of me. Mr Robert Buckland.

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that a request for further resources for the SFO to investigate the LIBOR scandal will be met favourably by the Government?

[The Attorney-General]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the matter has already met a favourable response from the Government in terms of ensuring that adequate funds are made available. My hon. Friends and colleagues in the Treasury will want reassurance that the money is being well used, but I am quite satisfied that money and resources are available for the SFO. The director and I are also quite satisfied that he has the necessary resources to carry out the investigation properly.

Charitable Registration

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

Is not my hon. Friend’s key point that the Plymouth Brethren are not a closed sect, but an organisation that welcomes the public to participate in its activities and an important part of a vibrant community, such as the one in Swindon that I represent?

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely. There is a complete distinction—I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify it—between the Brethren and closed orders of nuns, for example, which understandably do not have charitable status. The Brethren are different, living and working within local communities.

European Council

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have never stormed out of any European negotiations, but what I have done is that when a treaty was on the table that was not in British interests, I vetoed it.

When it comes to the future financing framework, I have studied very closely what the last Labour Prime Minister who went through the process did, in 2005. To start with, he said, “I’m not going to sign up to this new financial framework, because it means losing the British rebate.” But then they gave him a bit of pressure, and he completely backed down and gave up almost half the rebate. In return, he got a promise of a discussion on reforming the common agricultural policy, and that discussion never even properly happened.

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

Motor manufacturers such as Honda will be very pleased to hear that progress is being made on negotiations with Japan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only through Britain’s positive engagement in and continuing membership of the EU will we negotiate effective and comprehensive trade agreements?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. If Britain was not at the table, I do not believe a free trade agreement would have much chance at all. There are countries alongside us that are in favour of it, but we are probably one of the most enthusiastic. I met the Japanese equivalent of the CBI last week at No. 10 Downing street with the Business Secretary, and I said that I would push hard for a free trade agreement with Japan. We have got a change in the language of the conclusions to talk about starting the negotiations in the coming months. However, it is hard work pushing and driving that agenda, because many countries would rather not see that happen. We think it is good for Britain. One of our selling points is being the most open trading economy in Europe, and we need to keep that up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Hillsborough independent panel.

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

9. What steps he is taking following the publication of the report of the Hillsborough independent panel in September 2012.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

My consideration of the evidence in this matter is far from complete, but as I do not wish to cause the families affected by this disaster any greater anxiety, I have decided to take an exceptional step and announce that, on the basis of what I have already seen, I am persuaded that an application to the Court for fresh inquests must be made.

Ninety-six people died as a result of what occurred at Hillsborough that day, and 96 inquests were held. I believe that, as all those deaths arose from a common chain of events, it would be better for me to apply for all 96 cases to be considered again. I want to allow all the families affected the opportunity to make representations to me on that issue, and I will be in contact with them.

I wish to make it clear that, having announced my decision, I will still need further time to prepare the application so that the strongest case can be made to the Court. I have given that work priority and I will continue to do so. I have today laid a written ministerial statement in both Houses announcing my decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

Clearly, the consideration of charges is done independently by the DPP and I have no role in it. It is perhaps trite to say—I think I have said this before—but were there to be criminal proceedings, that could undoubtedly impact on when an inquest could take place. However, I do not think that it has any impact on the timing of my making an application to the Court for it to order inquests to take place if it is so minded.

[Mr Buckland]

The Attorney-General’s announcement is indeed welcome news. Will he assure me that adequate parliamentary time will be given for the fullest of debates into the shocking revelations that we heard last month?

[The Attorney-General]

It is my understanding that there will be the opportunity for a debate on this matter next Monday, 22 October, which I believe will be led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Obviously, I will be present for as much of the debate as possible to listen to what is said.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to take part in this debate on a Bill that, at a stroke, will make huge leaps forward in how we approach mental health in respect of people who serve in this House, on a jury or as a company director, and in how we address the role that people with mental health conditions play in our society.

The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), is absolutely right: there is no binary divide in our society between those who have mental health and those who do not—just as, in fact, there is no binary divide in terms of disability either. It is all a question of degree, and it is important that we, as legislators, send that message out from this place loud and clear both to society in general and in order to express our support for all the organisations in this field. Many of us work with organisations such as Mind, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the many disability organisations that battle every day to get that message across. There is no such thing as normal. We are all unique; we all bring our own qualities to this place, and to whatever walk of life we have chosen. Those qualities, however idiosyncratic they may be, should be celebrated, not hidden.

That is why I am delighted to be here to support this Bill introduced by my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I have known him for many years; he is a man of great integrity. I know that he introduces this Bill because he, like all of us here, genuinely believes that now is the time to make progress on these issues.

If someone breaks a leg, they get hospital treatment and support not only from the medical services, but from family and friends—there will be a lot of “get well” cards and sympathy and encouragement. When a mental health episode occurs, however, things are far too often rather different. Other people—including friends, sometimes—often have difficulty dealing with it. That is due to centuries of stigma about mental health conditions.

It is not so long ago that people who had poor eyesight were seen as lesser creatures with a disability. I see that a lot of us today are wearing glasses; that is entirely part of the human condition—it is part of who we are. A simple but important analogy can be drawn between that and the situation with regard to mental health.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend must not allow the wearing of glasses to be the only evidence that someone is very short-sighted. I can assure all Members of the House that, were it not for contact lenses, I would be completely unable to find my way to the Chamber.

[Mr Buckland]

I must confess that I am one of a large number of people who are rather squeamish about the concept of contact lenses, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a good point about invisible conditions, which is another important analogy. We need to understand and have a greater awareness of invisible disabilities such as autism, and you will know of my great interest in that subject, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A significant proportion of all our constituents will have at some time suffered from and reported a mental health condition. In Swindon, the proportion of the GP-registered population with mental health needs in 2010-11 was just over 13%. Some 0.7% of the population were described as having a mental health problem, and 12.4% were suffering from depression. More than one in eight registered patients in the borough of Swindon, which has a population of over 200,000 people, have advised their doctor about a mental health condition. That is not something we can put in a box in a corner and forget about; it is something all around us, visible or invisible, that we need to accept, embrace and understand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central rightly pointed out that one significant anomaly in the law—the position with regard to school governors—has already been amended this year, and I am delighted that the Government were able to bring that discrimination to an end. That brings into ever more stark relief the outdated and archaic nature of the provisions that the Bill seeks to repeal.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, so long as we discriminate against MPs, jurors or company directors, it is much easier for employers to discriminate against someone with a history of mental illness, which flies in the face of the Government’s avowed intention of getting people who are presently being declared fit for work into work when actually the biggest barrier is not their history of mental illness, but the attitude of the employer who refuses to employ them?

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important point. She is entirely right. It is a question not just of removing legislative barriers, but of encouraging a change in culture. Owing to a lack of understanding, frankly, far too many businesses and organisations still display that outdated and unfortunate response to those with mental health conditions.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Good practice needs to be recognised, and I am pleased to report that next week Legal and General is hosting a major conference in the City about mental health and tackling stigma. I believe that the company should be congratulated for doing that, particularly in the City, where there is a sort of macho culture in which people deny any weakness in case their colleagues think the worse of them.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The equation of mental health problems with weakness is something we must destroy utterly. We all know about that culture in the City, and it exists elsewhere. Organisations such as Legal and General and Swindon’s Mindful Employer network, an excellent organisation that brings together companies large and small in my constituency to encourage and share best practice with regard to employees with stress or mental health and other related conditions, can demonstrate the way to go when it comes to dealing with these conditions.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. His point about the idea of mental illness being equated with weakness brings to mind a famous radio lecture given by Viscount Slim of Burma, who pointed out that even the most courageous warriors will eventually break down if they are not rested and supported by their commanding officers and, indeed, that courage is a little like a bank account: one can be overdrawn for a certain amount of time, but not indefinitely. Some of the bravest and most courageous people are just as liable to mental breakdown if they are not properly understood and supported as somebody who would never for a moment go into those hazardous situations.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend brings a great hero of mine to our attention: Field Marshal the Viscount Slim, leader of the forgotten army, a man who led an outstandingly courageous operation in the far east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that huge experience to bear in this debate, which allows me to make an important point. We must be very careful when we use words such as “vulnerable”, because many people I know who have mental health conditions—I am sure other Members of the House know such people—would not like to be described as vulnerable. Often they are very tough people indeed who have gone through the toughest of circumstances.

I make that point because a good-natured and well-intentioned approach that describes people with mental health conditions as vulnerable brings with it a danger that the vulnerability becomes the basis by which, rather than encouraging and enabling such people to engage fully in society and public life, we assume that they need to be looked after in a different way and separated from mainstream society. Such a view is only a short step away from the old thinking about institutionalisation—the thinking of previous generations, which did so much harm and damage to people with mental health conditions. Although it is undeniable that people with disabilities or mental health conditions can find themselves in vulnerable situations, that is very different from making glib assumptions about their vulnerability.

The Bill would be a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, it would also reduce and repeal legislation—something that I, as a Conservative, am always happy to support. In three particular respects it deals with provisions that are not only discriminatory, but wholly superfluous. The provision relating to Members of Parliament, as has already been noted, is not only dangerous, with the additional vice of potentially driving hon. Members to deny mental health problems, but in the light of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows for a person lacking capacity to be detained without losing their seat, section 141 is utterly redundant. On the principle that redundant legislation is bad law, we as legislators should act swiftly to remove such a provision.

It has been reported today that people with stressful jobs in which the ability to control events is limited—I most definitely include being a Member of Parliament in that category—are at a 23% greater risk of having a heart attack. We really would be idiots in this place if we denied the possibility that the mental health of hon. Members is not invulnerable. In my opinion the 2005 Act caters well for cases in which, sadly, detention for mental health reasons is the only alternative available but, importantly, it does not allow the automatic vacation of a seat because of the fact of a mental health condition. That is the important distinction that we must draw between the mere fact of a condition and the question of capacity. The two things are very different.

As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had more than my fair share of experience of dealing with the great British jury, to quote the words of W. S. Gilbert, whether I have been sitting as a Crown court recorder or appearing as counsel in criminal cases. I say with all the experience that I can muster that the court system is perfectly capable of catering for and dealing with people with conditions—sometimes lifelong ones—that can be managed by the administration of medication.

When somebody with diabetes, or another type of physical condition managed by regular medication, comes to the court, the well adopted practice is for sittings and administrative arrangements to be adjusted so that the person’s needs can be accommodated, they can take their medication and can serve as a juror. In other words, no assumption is made that, just because a potential juror has a physical condition or disability, they cannot serve as a juror.

The assumption in the Juries Act 1974 about mental health is wholly wrong. The blanket ban serves not only to reinforce stigma, but devalues the contribution that people with mental health conditions make to society and can make as jurors. In my humble opinion, there is no more important public service for an individual than to serve on a jury in judgment over their fellow citizen. To drive underground necessary disclosure of some mental health conditions that could affect the capacity to serve is, in my view, what is happening now—inevitably, as result of the outdated provisions in the 1974 Act. That is why those provisions must go and why I particularly welcome the Bill.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I take my hon. Friend back to his earlier comment that on occasions he felt a victim of events in this place? Today, with this excellent speech, as on so many other days, he is driving events and is to congratulated for it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a friend indeed.

I turn to the final provision, which relates to company directors. The proposed removal of the provisions in the schedules to the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 has the function of removing not only discriminatory provisions but unnecessary ones. Why is that? It is because the model articles themselves already contain provision for the termination of a director’s appointment if a registered GP is of the opinion that that person has become physically or mentally incapable as a director and may be so for more than three months.

The provisions are a complete waste of time. They need to be removed for the sake of simplicity. Frankly, this is another example of removing unnecessary red tape and burdens when it comes to the setting up and creation of a business. From a practical point of view, the removal is effective and necessary. Let me also deal briefly with the existing provisions on orders made by the Court of Protection. Those orders are based on a lack of mental capacity, not the mere fact of a mental health condition.

I have mentioned that difference before, and I will say it again—I will keep saying it until everybody understands. Having a mental health condition does not mean that someone cannot play their full part in our society. That is why I warmly welcome the Bill as a real step forward, on a day of honour for the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a thought-provoking debate and it is a genuine pleasure to respond to it. Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on his success in the ballot and on then introducing this Bill on a subject that is much deserving of the support that it continues to enjoy in this House. I assure the House, as I think it already knows, that this Bill has the full backing of the Government. I appreciate the words spoken by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. She was passionate and right to talk about the effect of ignorance, cruelty and fear, and I look forward, as, I think, do all hon. Members, to much common endeavour to overcome those concerns.

I am sure that the entire House will join me in paying tribute to Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, whose Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill in the other place provided the genesis for the Bill under discussion. Without his efforts, we might not be debating this important issue today. Although it is regrettable that the previous parliamentary Session did not allow enough time for Lord Stevenson’s Bill to progress, we are grateful to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for their continued pursuit of the opportunity for legislative change on mental health. I know that, when this Bill reaches the other place, Lord Stevenson will treat it with the same gusto with which he treated his own Bill. I assure all hon. Members present that that work will have the Government’s continued support.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today with refreshing openness, as was the case in June, about the impact that mental health issues have had on their lives and on those of our constituents. It is right that we have taken this opportunity to debate those important issues further. This morning’s debate continues the tradition of bravery and sympathy that was established in this House on 14 June. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who is now doing excellent work on the Front Bench and who played a role in initiating that debate. It has been humbling to see politics set aside—in June and today—and hon. Members from both sides speaking in support of the measures.

I will take a moment to recap on some of the excellent contributions that have been made. We heard first of all from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who referred to her own recent experience of being absent from the House. We welcome her back with gusto. She is absolutely right that the tribulation that can result from any health problem contributes better to our ability to endeavour to represent constituents who may experience the same thing. However, she taught us much more—as she often does—with her experience of working in this place and of seeking election with her own disability. She reminds us all of the trust and belief that we solicit from people when we stand for Parliament, and she certainly teaches us about the fire and the feistiness with which we need to do that and canvass and persuade. She teaches us that, in many ways, the battle is still to come, despite the very good step that we are taking this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who have been well feted today, spoke admirably again. My hon. Friend spoke of the sea change in attitudes since the June debate and gave a great insight into what can happen in a media studio once the lid has been taken off these difficult issues. He is right to say that our hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central has achieved something big today, for which we all congratulate him and wish him well.

The hon. Member for North Durham repeated the challenging question asked by one of his constituents, who said, “Why should this matter? Why should we talk about this today?” A cynic might ask whether this is just another exception for MPs, but the hon. Gentleman responded admirably to such views. He gave, with dry humour, an historical overview and said, with passion, that we should talk about it today and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) acknowledged work that the Government are doing and was right to highlight this week’s important announcement on suicide prevention. As always, we welcome her professional expertise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is, of course, in his place on a Friday. I do not think we will ever experience a Friday without his presence or his panache and tenacity in pursuing not only the state of the public purse, but the appropriateness of any private Member’s Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Whips Office have noted, as I have, that he has volunteered to sit on the Bill Committee. I do not imagine that that will be agreed to, but, on a serious note, I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to the work. Even if he was only just able to find his way to the Chamber, we welcome his contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is very learned, made an erudite, thoughtful and challenging contribution. He posed questions, as I have often heard him do, that should make us all continue to consider what we do in this place and why. He drew on a deep experience of his own in a former professional capacity.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) drew out, with tenacity and drive, some of the distinctions that we make in our everyday lives if we do not consider things carefully. He mentioned physical ill health, which I have experienced, having broken a bone, and rightly said—this has been said many times today—that it is possible to recover from episodes of both physical and mental illness.

[Mr Buckland]

We should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for having soldiered on when she sustained that physical injury. By getting on with her job, she made the point that, although she had a reduced capacity, she was able to do it. That is the point. The mere fact that she was injured did not mean that she could not do it. She made the point about capacity by her own example.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is too kind, but he makes the point well, on behalf of others who have had to deal with far greater difficulties than a mere broken metatarsal, that it is possible to recover and make a vital contribution to civil society as represented by the three strands addressed by the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned an important historical example given by Viscount Slim. He spoke of courage, weakness and vulnerability and what it means to endeavour to sustain those important qualities. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) followed that line and spoke on behalf of their many constituents who have been part of the armed forces. I reiterate their comments that the Government are absolutely committed to their armed forces covenant and to helping get the right support where it is needed for those members of society.