House of Commons - Work of the Committee in 2008-09

Work of the Committee in 2008-09 - Justice Committee Contents

2 Inquiries and core tasks

Activity

18. The Justice Committee published the following substantive reports in 2008-09:

Crown Dependencies: evidence taken (19 December);
Coroners and Justice Bill (23 January);
The work of the Information Commissioner: appointment of a new Commissioner (9 February);
Devolution: a decade on (24 May);
Constitutional reform and renewal: Parliamentary Standards Bill (1 July);
Sentencing guidelines and Parliament: building a bridge (2 July);
Family legal aid reform (15 July);
Constitutional reform and renewal (29 July);
The Crown Prosecution Service: gatekeeper of the criminal justice system (6 August);
Draft sentencing guideline: overarching principles—sentencing youths (13 August); and
Role of the prison officer (3 November).

19. The Committee also published a number of Government replies to its reports:

Coroners and Justice Bill: Government response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2008-09 (6 March);
Crown Dependencies: evidence taken: Government response to the Committee's First Report of Session 2008-09 (9 March);
Appointment of the Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints: Government response to the Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2007-08 (13 March);
The work of the Information Commissioner: appointment of a new Commissioner: Government response to the Committee's Third Report of Session 2008-09 (24 April);
Family legal aid reform: Government response to the Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2008-09 (16 October); and
Parliamentary Standards Bill and Constitutional reform and renewal: Government responses to the Committee's Seventh and Eleventh Reports of Session 2008-09 (16 October).

20. In addition the Committee launched inquiries into, and/or took evidence on, the following subjects:

the allocation of resources across the criminal justice system (justice reinvestment) (3 evidence sessions);
the Legal Services Board (1 session);
the work of the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (1 session);
the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (1 session);
the Ministry of Justice's departmental annual report (1 session);
justice issues in Europe (2 sessions); and
the Fraud (Statutory Offences) Sentencing Guideline (1 session).

21. A full record of our activity is set out in the Sessional Return extract annexed to this report.

Performance against core tasks

22. In 2002 the Liaison Committee established a list of core tasks to guide the work of departmentally-related select committees and we give examples below of how our work in 2007-08 reflected these objectives. A more comprehensive summary in tabular form is annexed to this report.

Examination of Government and European Commission policy proposals (objective A)

CORE TASK 1: SCRUTINY OF POLICY PROPOSALS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

Inquests without juries, data-sharing within Government and developing sentencing guidelines

23. The Coroners and Justice Bill was a collection of provisions on a wide range of topics, many of which we, and before us the Constitutional Affairs Committee, had inquired into and reported upon. We updated this work to assist the House with its consideration of the Coroners and Justice Bill as it seemed unlikely that proceedings in the Chamber, or even public bill committee, would have the time or capacity to look in great detail at every corner of this disparate collection of legislative provisions.

24. We have enduring concerns about key areas of the bill which are not addressed by the Act in its final form—that there should be a clear and consistent funding system for the coroners' service; that Parliament should take over responsibility for the resourcing of the Information Commissioner; and about the production of sentencing guidelines. However, we welcomed three changes to the Government's proposals which accorded with our conclusions and recommendations.

25. First, specific proposals for inquests without juries to be held, upon certification by Ministers, were dropped (although we note that provisions pointing to use of the Inquiries Act 2005, potentially to the same end, remain in Schedule 1).[21] Secondly, provisions for Ministers to grant data-sharing powers—under which personal information collected by one department or agency for one purpose could be transmitted to another department or agency for use for another purpose—have been shelved pending re-examination of safeguards. Data-sharing between government agencies has the potential to improve public services, and the powers and responsibilities involved urgently need to be clarified, but the process envisaged in the bill appeared to us to be very broad brush and without appropriate safeguards. Sufficient powers and guarantees of capacity for the Information Commissioner are required to provide for the effective regulation of this new activity. Finally, we welcome the fact that the Justice Committee is now named on the face of the Act as a consultee in the production of sentencing guidelines.

Legal aid

26. Legal aid is a long-term subject of inquiry for this Committee and its predecessor. Our predecessors published a report in 2007 on the implementation of recommendations arising from Lord Carter of Coles's review of legal aid, published in 2006.[22] We have remained engaged with the issue of legal aid since that time and this enabled us to react quickly when the need arose in the 2008-09 Session. As part of the broader strategy for legal aid reform set out by Lord Carter, the Legal Services Commission published in December 2008 a consultation document on family legal aid funding.[23] New arrangements for funding representation, advocacy and expert evidence in public and private family law cases were proposed.

27. Both the substance of the Legal Services Commission's proposals and the timetable for consultation met with a storm of protest from the judiciary, the legal profession, guardians, social workers, and the Ministry of Justice's own advisory body on the family justice system, the Family Justice Council.[24] In response to representations made to us, we held an informal meeting in March 2009 with family law practitioners and then wrote to Lord Bach, the Minister responsible for legal aid, about the issues raised. We also wrote to Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP, then Minister for Children at the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), about the interaction of legal aid funding and the performance of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) and CAFCASS Cymru. The responses we received from Ministers did not satisfy us that sufficient attention was being paid to the issues we raised, so we took oral evidence on 16 June 2009 from the former President of the Family Division, Baroness Butler-Sloss, family law practitioners and the Legal Services Commission. That evidence, together with the subsequent written evidence we received, persuaded us that there was cause for serious concern about the future of family legal aid provision and we reported to the House as soon as possible.[25]

28. As a result of the issues we raised, the Government deferred decisions on the proposals while further analysis was undertaken by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), crucially, in closer cooperation with the professions. The Government has now announced a revised scheme which includes greater graduation of fees for family advocacy reflecting the varying complexity of family law cases. In addition, the Government has dropped its proposal to cease allowing the funding of independent social work and guardianship via legal aid when other provision fails.[26]

29. In a similar vein, we were preparing to hold a further short inquiry into another Government initiative in its legal aid reform programme; the piloting of "best value tendering" (BVT) in the procurement of criminal defence services. We received an unprecedented number of representations from solicitors and others expressing concern about the proposals and, in particular, the planned phasing-in of changes before the pilot study had been concluded. Prior to our commencing work, the Government announced: "the LSC has listened carefully to concerns raised by those responding to the consultation and has been persuaded that there is a strong case for delaying the wider implementation of BVT until at least 2013 to enable a full evaluation of the impact in the two pilot areas".[27] We await the report of the pilot studies.

30. In our report we made a number of broader criticisms of the Legal Services Commission's conduct of the legal reform programme, in particular its approach to consultation and relations with the legal professions as well as the extent to which its proposals were predicated on changes in the market for legal services, made possible by the Legal Services Act 2007, but which had not yet occurred.

31. On family law specifically, the Ministry of Justice has announced the formation of a National Family Justice Board (NFJB)—including the DCSF, the LSC, Cafcass and CAFCASS Cymru in its membership—co-chaired by three ministers representing DCSF, Ministry of Justice and the Welsh Assembly Government. This ministerial board is responsible for taking "a strategic view of whole system reform across the family justice system".[28] We look forward to receiving reports on the work of this new body.

32. On legal aid as a whole, the Government has announced a fundamental review of the delivery of legal aid in the following terms:

To review the existing delivery and governance arrangements of the legal aid system, and make recommendations that:

explore the separation of the CDS [Criminal Defence Service] and CLS [Community Legal Service (civil law)] and options for doing so effectively and efficiently should that be the recommended way forward;
provide for effective and transparent financial management of both funds and their administration;
provide for effective ministerial accountability and policy direction in respect of both the CDS and CLS, whilst continuing to ensure that every application to the CLS and CDS funds is decided fairly, within the criteria, at arms length from government; and
identify appropriate delivery models for both the CDS and CLS and their relationship with the ministry.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice and the LSC are reviewing the current financial and governance frameworks to ensure that where there are any potential opportunities for immediate improvement, these are taken forward without delay.[29]

33. We look forward to the conclusions and recommendations of Sir Ian Magee who has been asked by the Ministry of Justice to conduct this review with a view to reporting early in 2010.

Parliamentary standards

34. On 23 June 2009, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, introduced the Parliamentary Standards Bill containing proposals to establish independent regulation of Members' expenses and allowances as well as new means of investigating and sanctioning cases of wrongful claims including new criminal offences. Three days were set aside for all stages of the bill. Mr Straw emphasised that the bill had cross-party consensus and was urgently needed to restore public confidence in Parliament. He said the bill would: create an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to set and regulate allowances and expenses payments; set rules to deal with financial interests; put the Members' code of conduct on a statutory footing, create a Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations and create three offences (false claims, breaches of registration rules and paid advocacy).

35. We were concerned that the bill had constitutional implications that the House might not be able fully to capture, express and consider in only three days' consideration. To this end we requested a memorandum from Dr Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the House—and from other constitutional experts—on the potential impact of the bill on the 300 year-old separation of the proceedings and processes of Parliament, from those of the Courts.

36. The evidence we received identified risks to the operation of freedom of speech in the House and committee (on behalf of constituents) arising from certain provisions in the bill that were not essential to its core objective. We published the Clerk's memorandum immediately, on Friday 26 June, to inform debate on the bill which took place on the following Monday. This gave rise to widespread media comment and to around 50 references in the second reading debate.[30] To follow up, we took oral evidence from the Clerk, and other senior officials, on Tuesday 30 June and agreed a report that same evening for production overnight and publication the next day, on 1 July, to inform debate on the relevant provisions.[31]

37. In the event, changes to the bill, in the Commons and Lords, meant that the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 emerged with far less potential for the entanglement of proceedings of the Commons and the Courts than when it was introduced.

38. We note the Leader of the House's statement of the Government's position on bringing forward further legislation to amend this Act now that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has published its findings in this matter.[32]^,[33] We will consider the constitutional implications of these in due course.

CORE TASK 2: SCRUTINY OF EMERGING POLICY, OR WHERE EXISTING POLICY IS DEFICIENT

Crown dependencies

39. At the beginning of 2008-09 we published a short report, together with oral and written evidence, on how the Ministry of Justice had performed in representing the interests of the Crown Dependencies within the UK Government in relation to the Government's response to the Icelandic banking crisis (which had distinct impacts in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey).[34] We gathered and published this evidence as a matter of urgency given the seriousness and far-reaching effects of this crisis, particularly for depositors in Crown Dependency-based subsidiaries of Icelandic banks (which included a substantial number of UK residents, organisations and expatriates). We also had an informal meeting with a delegation from Tynwald, the Isle of Man legislature, led by its President, the Hon Noel Cringle MLC. As a result of the oral evidence we took from Lord Bach, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, we identified the need for clarification of the relationship between the UK and the Crown Dependencies and we are pursuing this matter in a further inquiry.

Constitutional reform

40. Our inquiry into constitutional change reflected a public appetite for wider parliamentary and constitutional reform which came to a head in the summer of 2009, partly because of the Members' expenses and allowances issue and its effect on perceptions of Parliament.

41. Our report dealt with wider-ranging issues of constitutional importance.[35] We noted the range of reforms introduced over the last decade and the unfinished nature of much of this work. For example, the devolution of power to assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, without further reform of governance in England; the expulsion of most hereditary peers without further reform of the House of Lords; shifting policies on regional governance; the abandoned Constitutional Renewal Bill; and the rushed reforms on parliamentary standards. Our report highlighted the risks associated with the unintended consequences of piecemeal constitutional reform in the absence of an overall strategy. We welcomed the Government's responsiveness to the public mood, but considered that appropriate mechanisms were needed to guard against the swift introduction of inadequately considered constitutional "solutions" which only succeeded in bringing further problems.

Devolution

42. An example of our longer-term investigations can be found in our report on devolution.[36] The purpose of this substantial inquiry was to consider the impact of devolution on the United Kingdom and the development of devolution policy since 1999. We noted that responsibility for overseeing the operation of devolved government was divided between Government departments and recommended the appointment of a lead department for devolution strategy in order to address this lack of clarity and the need for a common approach across Whitehall. We also considered the question of England's status post-devolution and the various solutions available to address problems with England's governance. We reviewed the Barnett formula, which governs UK funding for expenditure by the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and which we found to be in urgent need of reform.

43. We took oral evidence from a wide variety of witnesses over an extended period between November 2007 and July 2008. These evidence sessions took place not only in Westminster, but also in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Newcastle, an initiative which we considered important given the subject matter of our investigations and the need to engage more directly with the interests of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Our Cardiff evidence session was conducted bilingually in both English and Welsh.

Prison officers

44. We also conducted a substantial inquiry into the role of the prison officer. This was, in part, inspired by a perception of the challenges facing criminal justice practitioners in working in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex system and by evidence that prison officers, being in daily contact with those in custody, have considerable influence over prisoners' rates of recidivism.[37] We also considered the inquiry to be timely in the light of Government proposals to change working practices amongst prison staff as part of the Workforce Modernisation programme as well as the controversy over the prison capacity-building programme, including whether or not to go ahead with Titan prisons.

45. Our evidence in this inquiry suggested that the positive impact of prison officers on re-offending could often be substantial but, there were significant obstacles within the system to maximising this contribution. We found the prison system to be under various pressures, including over-crowding, staff shortages, and a high incidence of prisoners with unaddressed drug, alcohol and mental health problems. Prison officers often have too little time or opportunity to build the constructive relationships with prisoners that can lead to positive rehabilitative results; and can also help to. head off incidents that threaten security before they get out of hand.

46. We expressed concern about the inconsistent quality of training and the potential de-skilling of the workforce, reducing the prison officer's role to that of warder or 'turnkey'. We were concerned that some current policies were likely to exacerbate this problem. We identified the need to nurture the sense of vocation which, motivates many prison officers in their choice of work. We concluded that a reduction in the ratio of officers to prisoners in pursuit of economic savings was likely to halt, or even reverse, progress on re-offending rates over the longer term. This would create more victims, amplify the fear of crime and increase the wider social and financial burdens of criminality. Overall, we found that the role of the prison officer hinged upon the purpose of prison which was itself unclear. The objectives of the Prison Service should be realigned, alongside those of the criminal justice system as a whole, to reflect a new priority to reduce offending and—particularly in the case of prison—re-offending.

Crown Prosecution Service

47. Another major inquiry looked at the role and performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. We took a substantial amount of written and oral evidence from a wide range of witnesses, including academics, police representatives, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, legal practitioners, charities active in the field of criminal justice, the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the Crown Prosecution Service itself and the Attorney General. This was a comprehensive report which considered the importance of the Crown Prosecution Service to the criminal justice system, what its role should be, and whether there were alternatives to the present structure of prosecution services in England and Wales.

48. We considered the CPS to be pivotal in the criminal justice system as gatekeeper of a system involving huge public expenditure. Yet the role had only developed incrementally over time, in response to specific challenges, rather than with clear expectations, direction or vision. The Service seemed to have grown by occupying space, and performing functions, formerly the province of the police on one side and the courts on the other. For example, taking on charging decisions and issuing conditional cautions. Worryingly, we found also that the prosecutor's role in relation to victims seemed to be generally misunderstood. The prosecutor is not able to be an advocate for the victim in the way that the defence counsel is for the defendant, yet Government proclamations that the prosecutor is the champion of victims' rights may give this impression. Much of the prosecutor's work by its nature serves the needs of victims, and it should strive for a better service to victims, but there needs to be a better understanding of what it is possible for the prosecutor to be and to do in relation to victims. The prosecutor's role needs to have a proactively defined strategic place in the criminal justice system reflecting a clear overall priority to reduce offending and, particularly, re-offending.

CORE TASK 3: SCRUTINY OF DRAFT BILLS

49. All the draft bills published this session by the Ministry of Justice were referred to ad hoc joint committees by the Leader of the House, without regard to the principle that departmental select committees in the Commons should have first choice on undertaking the pre-legislative scrutiny role in respect of draft bills within their remits.

CORE TASK 4: SCRUTINY OF POLICY DOCUMENTS OR OTHER DECISIONS

50. We have formal responsibility for the scrutiny of draft sentencing guidelines on behalf of the House of Commons (inherited from the Home Affairs Committee on establishment of the Ministry of Justice). The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has established new arrangements, including a statutory responsibility for the new Sentencing Council for England and Wales to consult the Justice Committee, or its equivalent, on draft sentencing guidelines. In this Session, under the former arrangements, we took written and oral evidence on the draft Fraud (Statutory Offences) sentencing guideline. In this case, we provided comments on the draft guidelines in the form of a letter (also published on our website). However, we report to the House on draft guidelines which we believe raise major issues. This was the case with the draft sentencing guideline, "Overarching principles - sentencing youths", which for the first time set out for youth courts the basis on which they should sentence offenders under the age of 18. Accordingly, we reported our evidence and conclusions to the House, noting key areas in relation to youth justice, such as the use of remand and provisions for offenders aged 18-24, which were deserving of further scrutiny.[38]

51. In the light of the new Sentencing Council for England and Wales—bringing together the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council—proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill, we published a more general report on Parliament's role in the scrutiny of sentencing guidelines. Our experience in this field, and our desire to find a balance between democratic scrutiny and judicial independence, led us to recommend that more attention should be paid to the extent to which sentencing guidelines take into account the costs and the effectiveness of the different sentencing options available (or that need to be available) contribute to reducing crime and re-offending rates and public confidence in the criminal justice system overall. We consider these to be important principles in our own evaluation of individual sentencing guidelines. We argued that the body responsible for sentencing guidelines ought to deploy an evidence-based approach to identify 'what works' in making sentences more effective in terms of reducing re-offending and to build the outcomes of that work into sentencing guidelines policy.

Examination of departmental expenditure and administration (objectives B and C)

CORE TASKS 5, 6 AND 7: SCRUTINY OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURE PLANS, PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED TARGETS AND THOSE OF ITS EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, NDPBS, REGULATORS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PUBLIC BODIES

52. In October 2009, we examined the Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Justice—alongside other members of the management board—on the department's performance against objectives and targets, as well as the work of its associated public bodies, as set out in the Ministry's departmental annual report.

53. During the 2008-09 session, we also took evidence from a range of the Ministry of Justice's associated public bodies and regulators as part of our inquiries, including the outgoing and incoming Information Commissioners; the Crown Prosecution Service; Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate; the Legal Services Board; the Office for Criminal Justice Reform; and the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

CORE TASK 8: SCRUTINY OF MAJOR APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT

54. The Information Commissioner is one of the posts proposed by the Government as being suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny.[39] On 13 January 2009, the Ministry of Justice announced that Mr Christopher Graham, then Director-General of the Advertising Standards Authority, was the Government's preferred candidate for the post of Information Commissioner and invited us to report on his suitability.[40]

55. To maximise the value of such a session, we took preparatory evidence from the out-going Commissioner, Mr Richard Thomas, followed by the pre-appointment hearing with Mr Graham. The session was a useful one focusing on the likely key challenges in the short and medium term for the champion of freedom of information and guardian of data protection. In our report, we endorsed the appointment of Mr Graham and made some recommendations about the role and responsibilities of the Information Commissioner and the arrangements under-pinning his institutional support.[41]

56. We intend to follow the same process with two further important pre-appointment proceedings planned in 2010 in respect of (a) HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service[42] and (b) HM Chief Inspector of Prisons.

CORE TASK 9: SCRUTINY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION AND MAJOR POLICY INITIATIVES

57. See above for reference to our scrutiny of:

implementation of the legislation establishing the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (devolution); and
implementation of the Carter reform programme for legal aid (family legal aid).

58. In addition, we took evidence from the Legal Services Board on progress with the implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007, with particular reference to the new arrangements for the regulation of the legal professions and progress with establishing the right conditions for alternative business structures for the provision of legal advice and representation (which we regard as an important precursor to the effective reform of legal aid provision as currently envisaged by the Government).

Assisting the House in debate and decision (objective D)

CORE TASK 10: PRODUCTION OF REPORTS FOR DEBATE

59. In Session 2008-09, our work was specifically 'tagged' as relevant to debate on the floor of the House or debated in Westminster Hall on the following occasions:

Coroners and Justice Bill (second reading on 26 January 2009 and report and third reading on 23-24 March 2009) (Coroners and Justice Bill, Second Report of Session 2008-09, HC 185);
Political Parties and Elections Bill (consideration and third reading on 2 March 2009) (Party funding, First Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 163; and the Government's response, Cm 7123);
Parliamentary Standards Bill (second reading and in committee on 29-30 June 2009) (written evidence received on constitutional reform and renewal, HC 791-i);
Parliamentary Standards Bill (in committee, report and third reading on 1 July 2009) (Constitutional reform and renewal: Parliamentary Standards Bill, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, HC 791); and
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (second reading on 20 October 2009) (Constitutional reform and renewal, Eleventh Report of Session 2008-09, HC 923; and the Government's response, HC 1017).
sentencing and penal policy on 5 February 2009 (debate in Westminster Hall) (Towards effective sentencing, Fifth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 184; and the Government's response, Cm 7476).

60. This list demonstrates that we continue to consider one of our prime responsibilities to be ensuring that the work of the Committee contributes to the wider work of the House in holding the Government to account. Perhaps the most significant example of this was our expedited work on the Parliamentary Standards Bill[43] which sought to make available to the House important evidence gathered on the constitutional implications of the bill to an extremely tight deadline.

61. As a further example, the main purpose of our report on the Coroners and Justice Bill was to assist the House in its consideration of the bill by updating and highlighting a wide range of pertinent conclusions and recommendations previously made by us and our predecessor, the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

21 We note the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that-under the terms of Schedule 1 to the Act-a coroner may refuse to suspend an inquest in favour of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 if he reasonably believes that the inquiry will not comply with Article 2 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]. Back

22 Lord Carter's Review of Legal Aid Procurement (July 2006), Legal aid - a market-based approach to reform, available at http://www.legalaidprocurementreview.gov.uk/publications.htm; and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Implementation of the Carter review of legal aid, Third Report, Session 2006-07, HC 223 Back

23 Legal Services Commission (December 2008), Family Legal Aid Funding From 2010: A Consultation, available at https://consult.legalservices.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/FamilyFees2008/listdocuments Back

24 Justice Committee, Eighth Report, 2008-09, Family legal aid reform, HC 714 Back

25 Ibid, published 15 July 2009 Back

26 Justice Committee, First Special Report, 2009-10, HC 161, appendix: "Rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules allows a judge to order a child to be made a party to family law proceedings with separate representation". Back

27 20 July 2009, Written Ministerial Statement, Official Report, col. 108WS Back

28 Justice Committee, First Special Report, 2009-10, HC 161 Back

29 13 October 2009, Written Ministerial Statement, Official Report, col 24WS Back

30 For example: House of Commons in danger of cutting its own constitutional throat, but the Clerk of the House is trying to stop them, The Times, 29 June 2009; Top official blasts plans for clean-up, Yorkshire Post, 26 June 2009; Expenses watchdog 'a threat to MPs' free speech', The Guardian, 27 June 2009; PM clean up fears, The Sun, 27 June 2009; Commons plans draw criticism, Financial Times, 27 June 2009. Back

31 Justice Committee, Seventh Report, 2008-09, Constitutional reform and renewal: Parliamentary Standards Bill,
HC 791 Back

32 10 December 2009, Written Ministerial Statement, Official Report, col 34WS (Parliamentary Standards (Legislative Proposals) Back