| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift—sufficient to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, he has put the matter on the record. Some slip-up may have occurred and I am sure that we all wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) well and a speedy return to the House.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have considerable sympathy on the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Before I deal with that, may I say that I am grateful for his backhanded support for the point that we sought to make.
In drawing up the list, we included all those who signed the early-day motion, but we realise that there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We are all very fond of the hon. Gentleman and we are sorry that he has not been in the Chamber. His name should have been excluded and, having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), we shall take steps, on conclusion of these proceedings, to ensure that an amendment is tabled to that effect.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is equally not a point of order, but I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
Standards and Privileges
[Relevant document: The First Special Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2002–03, HC 516.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Prior to the main business, I shall make a short statement that I hope will be helpful to the House.
Before I call the Leader of the House to move motion No. 1, "Standards and Privileges", I would like to make clear how the debate will proceed. The debate on motion No. 1 will also cover the detailed proposals set out in motions Nos. 2 and 3. At the end of the debate, the Chair will put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on all three motions. Members wishing to ask questions or raise points about the Standing Order amendments in motion No. 2 or the provisions in motion No. 3 about the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner should do so in the course of their speech on motion No. 1.
2.43 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): I beg to move,
- That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 5663), the Response to that Report by the House of Commons Commission (HC 422), and the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 403); and agrees with the recommendation in paragraph 50 of that Report that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
The Wicks committee found that
- "standards in the House of Commons are generally high, and that the overwhelming majority of members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
- "the fundamental structure of the current system for regulating standards of conduct in the House of Commons is sound".
It is of the greatest importance that the conduct of Members of the House meets, and is seen to meet, the high standards expected by the Wicks committee, and also by our constituents. Lapses, however rare, are very damaging to public confidence in the House and in our parliamentary democracy. If lapses occur, and are not seen to be tackled with sufficient rigour, the effect is many times worse. Our system for regulating standards of conduct must be transparent, fair and effective.
The Committee on Standards and Privileges published its observations on the Wicks report's recommendations with its second report on 11 February. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his
Committee for the careful consideration that they have given to the Wicks report and for their positive proposals in response to the Wicks committee's 27 recommendations.I will leave it to the Chairman of the Committee to explain its thinking and in what respects it has met the letter of the Wicks recommendations and in what respects, and for what reasons, it has offered some alternative way forward, meeting in a different way the spirit of the Wicks recommendations. The Government are content to accept the Committee's recommendations and I have tabled a motion to make the necessary changes to the Standing Orders to give them effect.
We have slightly diverged from the Committee's recommendations in only one respect. In paragraph 62, the Committee noted the inter-party understanding that its Chairman be drawn from the Opposition parties and recommended that in future it should be provided for, preferably by amendment of Standing Order No. 149. The Government regard that as a strong convention and we intend that the Chairman should continue to be drawn from the Opposition parties, as both the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Wicks committee have recommended. We agree with them, but it would be unprecedented to make that a requirement of the Standing Orders.
The Government have agreed—after some consideration, as it is unprecedented for Select Committees of the House—to the Wicks committee's recommendation that no one party should hold an overall majority on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We accept the Standards and Privileges Committee's recommendation that that should be implemented gradually, by natural wastage, to avoid over-rapid change and loss of expertise. Subject to the agreement of the usual channels, and of the House, we intend to move towards a Committee of 10 Members, of whom five would be from the Government party and five from the Opposition parties.
Similarly, we agree to the recommendation that Parliamentary Private Secretaries should no longer serve on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. While there has been no suggestion that those members of the Committee who have served as PPSs have acted on the Committee with anything other than independence of mind, it is important to ensure that there can be no perception that the Committee's independence is compromised by proximity to Government. As the Committee recommended, it is our intention to achieve that change gradually.
The House of Commons Commission has considered the recommendations in the Wicks report, which apply to it: those relating to the status of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the terms and methods of his appointment. Its report was published on 11 February.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): The Leader of the House has just said that he hopes that the recommended changes to the balance of Committee membership and to PPS membership will be made gradually. I understand that, but can he tell us when he expects that process to be complete?
Peter Hain: There was no recommendation about that, but I think that it should be sooner rather than
later. That would be in the spirit of the recommendations of both Committees. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.The Commission accepted the Wicks committee's recommendation that the Commissioner should be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term of between five and seven years—it suggests five—and that he should continue to be appointed by the House on the recommendation of the Commission. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) is in his place.
Only one of the recommendations of the Wicks committee relates to a Government responsibility: recommendation 6 proposes that it should be an explicit requirement of the ministerial code that Members who are Ministers must co-operate with any investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, at all stages. The Government accept that recommendation. In fact, it was agreed prior to the Wicks report that an amendment should be made to the ministerial code to add an additional sentence at the end of section 1 to make it clear that Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements that Parliament has itself laid on them as Members, including in particular the codes of conduct for their respective Houses. The amendment, which is already implemented, will be incorporated in the next published edition of the ministerial code.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could confirm to the House who is responsible for upholding the ministerial code. I have always assumed that it was the Prime Minister, but if it is a different answer perhaps at some stage in the debate it will be given to us.
Peter Hain: It will be the Prime Minister, obviously, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The first motion before us this afternoon—as well as taking note of the Wicks committee report, and of the Standards and Privileges Committee and commission responses—affirms that the House agrees with the recommendation of the Standards and Privileges Committee that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
The Wicks committee recommended that the House should introduce additional financial penalties without suspension, as a sanction for breach of the code of conduct. The Standards and Privileges Committee supported that, recommending—in paragraph 50—that the House should have the power, on a recommendation from the Committee, to withhold salary for a specified period from a Member found to have breached the code. If legislation were required, it looked to the Government to introduce it.
The legal advice obtained confirms that legislation is not necessary: the House has the power to withhold salary, and does so when Members are suspended. I understand that the Committee accepts that advice. Nevertheless, it is right that the House should be given the opportunity to affirm that it is content for this to be done in appropriate cases. It would seem very reasonable that the House should be able to impose this sanction—in very rare cases, I would hope—while
allowing the Member to conduct his or her parliamentary business on behalf of his or her constituents.The second motion on the Order Paper would make a number of changes to Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and to Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These are to give effect to recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee and of the commission. An explanatory memorandum has been made available in the Vote Office to explain the effects of this somewhat complex motion, and how it relates to the Committee's and the Commission's recommendations.
The amendment to Standing Order No. 149 makes explicit the S and P Committtee's power to appoint legal advisers, in the light of the Wicks committee recommendation that it should appoint an outside legal adviser to assist it with its work on a regular basis. In respect of Standing Order No. 150, the new paragraph (2A) implements a recommendation of the Wicks committee that the Commissioner's role in the rectification procedure should be set out clearly.
The new paragraphs (2B) to (2G) implement the proposal by the Standards and Privileges Committee for an investigatory panel. New paragraph (2H) requires the Commissioner to make an annual report to the House, as recommended by the Wicks committee. I understand that the Commissioner plans to make his first annual report shortly.
The revised paragraph (3) strengthens the Commissioner's independence by setting out more specifically than in the existing paragraph the circumstances in which he may be dismissed, and the procedure that is to be followed to do so. There has been concern about the Commissioner's security of tenure and this has been seen as compromising his independence. The amendment seeks to allay that concern, while allowing a means of dismissal in case the Commissioner were to become unfit or unable to hold office.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |