“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.
18 July 2011 : Column 759
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.
12.4 am
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I shall speak briefly to say some positive things about both Ann Abraham and Dame Julie Mellor. I was a member of the Public Administration Committee for eight years in the previous Parliament and met Ann Abraham on many occasions, saw her at work and interviewed her many times. She was always first class. She was steadfast, highly intelligent, a genuine representative of the people she served, and loyal to Parliament. She sometimes had to take stands on behalf of citizens and of Parliament in the face of the Government, who were sometimes unwilling to accept her recommendations. In the end, she won through with the unanimous support of the Public Administration Committee, which I was pleased about. Ann Abraham has done a tremendous job and I am sure other eulogies will be made when she retires at the end of the year.
Because the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), was on the appointment committee, I had the privilege of chairing the pre-appointment hearing. That was not just a privilege, but a pleasure. Dame Julie came before us and was subjected to an hour of questioning. Each member of the committee asked several difficult and searching questions and she came through with flying colours. She was absolutely the right person for the job and I compliment the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his colleagues on recommending her appointment. They have got exactly the right person.
I am confident that Dame Julie will be a worthy successor to Ann Abraham. It was a pleasure interviewing her. We enjoyed the experience. For her, it may have been something of an ordeal but, as I say, she came through it very well indeed and will be a great success in the post. I add my support for the appointment.
12.6 am
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
18 July 2011 : Column 760
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?
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.
18 July 2011 : Column 761
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Remuneration)
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.)
Business without Debate
MEMBERS’ EXPENSES
That Adam Afriyie, Guto Bebb, Cathy Jamieson, Mr Edward Leigh, Priti Patel, Mr Nick Raynsford, Joan Walley and Stephen Williams be members of the Committee on Members’ Expenses.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
That Cathy Jamieson be added to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—( Geoffrey Clifton Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
TRANSPORT
That Gavin Shuker be discharged from the Transport Committee and Graham Stringer be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
Future of the British Train Building Industry
12.10 am
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):
Mr Speaker, you will probably be aware from press reports that the British train building industry hangs in the balance because of a Government proposal to build trains in Germany for the Thameslink rolling stock programme, rather than at Bombardier in Derby. Feeling in the city is running extremely high. I have secured more than 50,000 signatures for the petition, calling on the Government to look again at the proposal to award the contract to Siemens in Germany, not least because the Prime Minister visited Derby only three and a half months ago and said that he was committed to rebalancing the economy in favour of the manufacturing industry. The citizens of
18 July 2011 : Column 762
Derby are hoping that he and the Government will take the same course of action that we saw in 1971 when Rolls-Royce went bust and the Government at the time did the right thing.
The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,
Declares that they are concerned about the future of the British train building industry. Their concern is a consequence of the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the new fleet of trains for the Thameslink Programme. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to reverse this decision.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Consultation on Electricity Transmission in Somerset
12.13 am
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I rise to present a petition from the residents of Wells and others who are concerned about the standard of National Grid’s consultation relating to 152-feet high pylons that are proposed to go across the Somerset levels, which would spoil beyond belief the Somerset countryside and damage incredibly the tourism on which most of Somerset is dependent. The people of Wells and others have asked that National Grid consider a choice of various forms so that they can see the cost and other factors that are involved in using alternatives to pylons and overhead lines—in particular, that it should consider undergrounding using an under-sea route through the Bristol channel or a version alongside the M5 corridor. The petition includes the signatures of over 1,500 residents of Wells and the surrounding area.
The Petition of residents of Wells and others,
Declares that the Petitioners believe National Grid’s consultation on proposals to erect 152 ft high pylons is flawed; that the proposal would blight the beautiful unspoiled Somerset countryside; and further declares that the Petitioners accept that electricity transmission is essential but the Petitioners are concerned that National Grid is offering consultees a choice between two unacceptable routes, chosen by National Grid solely on the basis of cost, to the exclusion of other viable options such as undergrounding, under the Bristol Channel or along the M5 corridor.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage National Grid to stop the current consultation into electricity transmission in Somerset and consider other viable options.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Licensing of Mobile Home Parks
12.15 am
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con):
I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Palma park homes in Loughborough that has been signed by 284 people. The House will be aware of concerns that have been expressed by Members of Parliament in all parts of the House about the way in which many park homes are managed. Such homes are often occupied by older and more vulnerable people. In Loughborough—I know that this experience is shared in park homes across the country—there are high maintenance and management charges and difficulties in selling these
18 July 2011 : Column 763
homes. At Palma park we have also recently had alleged incidents of violence between the former owner and the current owner of the park.
The Petition of the residents of Palma Park Homes, Loughborough, Leicestershire
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the standards of conduct exhibited by the owner of Palma Park Homes.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a fair, clear and simple licensing system for those owning mobile home parks, so that licence holders must show that they are fit and proper persons to hold such a licence, and that any regulations or legislation should set out how a licence may be revoked if a licence holder is found by the local authority to no longer meet the fit and proper criteria.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
18 July 2011 : Column 764
Election Petitions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)
12.17 am
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): I rise to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue that should be, and I think will be, of interest to all Members of the House—perhaps unexpectedly and by surprise in future years if the law is not changed. I declare not an interest, but a long-standing personal friendship with one of the individuals to whom I shall refer—Mr Phil Woolas, the former Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who is nowadays something of an expert on election petitions and their impact.
There has been a long history of election petitions over the past 400 years, but since 1604 there has not been much change in this respect in Parliament and therefore in this country. There has been a fundamental weakness in how the law has been consolidated in 1983 and since then. As is well recognised, the Electoral Commission has been privy to cross-party discussions—one could even call them negotiations—on such matters. In a helpful advice note, the commission said of the legal basis for challenging the result of an election:
“There was broad support for a review of the current legal basis for challenging the results of an election. The general”—
“consensus was that the process was antiquated, not user-friendly and that reform of the process was needed.”
Similarly, on the rather minor issue of the correction of procedural errors, it states:
“If the Returning Officer concludes that the wrong person was declared ‘duly’ elected because of a procedural mistake, he or she currently has no powers to correct the error beyond advising the affected candidate to lodge an election petition.”
That is clearly nonsense and an anomaly that needs to be rectified in law.
Petitions on minor but important issues that do not affect the result do not occur. In essence, those issues disappear. One cannot challenge a precise wrong within the process without a full election petition. We should have a system that allows candidates or third parties to point to errors that do not affect the outcome without involving the principle or requiring the potential expense of attempting to remove an elected Member. Any candidate or third party with a rational interest should have the power to point to something that has been done that is anomalous, wrong or mistaken, such as errors that are made in the process by a local authority or a returning officer. The inability to do so in the current system, other than by an exchange of correspondence, is a weakness that undermines our system of democracy.
We now get on to the much bigger issue of costs and surety. Given the nature of political argument and the often heated debates within election campaigns, it needs to be difficult for losing candidates to put in petitions that could be deemed frivolous. If it is too easy to put in an election petition and every candidate puts one in, perhaps because they have lost by a few votes and are looking for an excuse to overturn the result, it clearly does not suit Parliament and democracy. That must be balanced against the potential risks of costs should one put in a petition. It should not be only those with significant wealth, and who might be able to meet
18 July 2011 : Column 765
adverse costs, who should feel confident about putting in an election petition if there is a wrong that requires righting. There is an imbalance within the process that needs to be rebalanced. We must allow genuine petitions to go forward without encouraging reckless or frivolous petitions that are not genuine, and the ability to take forward a petition must not rely on finance.
The problem of costs was compounded recently by a case involving local election petitions in Slough. This is not a party political point, so I will not even mention the parties involved. The key issue is the principle. One of the major parties ended up with a councillor in prison. The other party, which brought the case, sought to have its costs awarded when it won the case. However, the party whose councillor was in prison dropped the candidate. It was up to the party that won in court potentially to bankrupt the individual. Clearly there needs to be a better system than that. I put it to the Minister that what is needed is a provision to allow election courts a wider remit in awarding costs and in deciding who should meet them. In particular, if a party defends the case, or aids and abets the defence, there should be the possibility of costs in part or whole being awarded against that party rather than necessarily against the individual. I do not think the continuation of the Slough example will serve any of the political parties in this country in future.
A case that, perhaps remarkably, has not been discussed in the House before is that of Mr Phil Woolas, who was a Member of the House and was elected at the last general election. I think it is reasonably fair to say that he was a widely respected Member on both sides of the House. Of course, he is no longer a Member, and indeed he cannot stand in any election for three years. I am not questioning the judgment that was made; I am questioning the process and its weaknesses and inflexibility. I think it will be helpful if I quote part of the conclusion of the judgment made by the two judges who sat on the election court. They stated:
“In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.
Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.”
One of the anomalies in the current law is the question of what is “personal character and conduct”. The previous time there was an electoral petition on the matter was the North Louth case in 1911. However, unless the law is changed, there is a danger in the era of the modern media that because one such case has been taken, many such cases could be taken. From looking at the publicity and propaganda that there have been, I think it is factually accurate to say that there have been worse in recent elections from all three main parties than in the case of Mr Woolas, and the candidates in question have won. Indeed, there is a significant question of how we determine the facts of a case. Others have raised that matter, and it was part of the appeal that was attempted. However, before I come to it, there is a point that has never been raised that I will raise for the first time.
18 July 2011 : Column 766
I am aware that the leaflets that caused offence were not written by Mr Woolas. He never made great play of the fact that he did not write them, but I put it to the House that less honourable politicians may well have used that as a basis of defence, although not necessarily successfully. They might have said that somebody else wrote the publicity. The question is where the sanctions should be applied. Should they be solely applied to the candidate?
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Clearly the candidate needs to take responsibility for their publicity, but the reason that question rings so true to me is that in 1997, I was sent by the Labour party to oversee the last five days of the campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth of Mr Phil Woolas. I wrote the leaflets in the last five days, and Mr Woolas, as a good candidate, was not consulted on them at any stage.
In the parlance of the Labour party agents—it is no different among the other major parties—candidates have been known for decades as “LNs”—legal necessities. My leaflets were beyond reproach, but if they had not been, who would have been responsible? Would it have been the writer of the leaflets, the legal agent appointed by the candidate, or the candidate? It seems to me that some flexibility of sanctions is needed in the law, to take that question into account. The matter could be further complicated, of course, if leaflets were put out jointly with local election candidates, potentially involving two agents and different candidates.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental weakness in the law. In essence, the question available to the election court, as demonstrated in the case of Mr Woolas, is yes or no, guilty or not guilty. If guilty, the sanction must be the ultimate one of striking out. No other option was available in Mr Woolas’s case. There was no option of looking to see whether the leaflets influenced the campaign. Therefore, a leaflet that is written but never distributed—a copy could be obtained—could be used to overturn an election result.
There is a second principle: there is no right of appeal—the press coverage at the time of Mr Woolas’s case perhaps confused that. The Fiona Jones case in 1999 was a criminal prosecution. Because of that, she successfully appealed and was reinstated as a Member of Parliament. In the civil case against Mr Woolas, no appeal was possible, as was recognised when he attempted a judicial review, and therefore it was not possible to look at the statements of fact as determined by the election court judges. Natural justice in any other place dictates that there should be an appeal. A murderer of the worst kind has a right of appeal, and yet a parliamentarian who has lost his seat because of an election court ruling—as others could—does not. That anomaly needs to be changed. It was changed in relation to criminal cases because of the Fiona Jones case, but it was left out of the 1983 consolidation Act.
It is essential that the Government move quickly to change that before lots of similar cases are brought to attempt to change results. I put it to the House that in the internet era, there is a greater possibility of more cases being brought, because there are more outlets for things being stated as part of a campaign. The candidate—
18 July 2011 : Column 767
rightly and honourably—must accept ownership of those things, but he might not have direct control of them during the campaign. I put it to the Minister that we are all at risk.
My final point to the Minister is a separate one that relates to my election. I estimate that a wealthy benefactor in the other place, Lord Ashcroft, put in £250,000 to try to win my seat in the election, and he did so quite legally. Many photographs of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, were sent by direct mail. One household received 29 direct mails, and mine received six. It was a waste of money—it may have increased my vote—but there is an unfairness in the system. If I had £250,000 to spend, I think I could increase my majority.
That also needs to be looked at. A review of fairness, honesty and integrity in elections is imperative—a review that does not excuse certain behaviour or give candidates of any party anywhere to run; and that allows honourable, fair and just campaigns and outcomes; but that leaves fair, just and reasonable remedies for those who wish to challenge them. The internet, e-mail, texting and Twitter age dictates that the Government must introduce legislation to change the foundation of electoral law in the UK, which is described by Roger Morris and David Monks, in “Running Elections 2003”, as
“Victorian in construction and tone”.
We need to modernise, and for all our sakes, we need to do so quickly.
12.34 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. It is not the first time we have heard from him this evening, but no less the worse for that.
The Government want to improve public confidence in all aspects of our electoral system. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is important that the conduct of all elections to this House, and to local authorities and the European Parliament, are beyond reproach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we want elections to be decided through the ballot box and not in the courts, but some remedies should be available to deal with cases of corrupt or illegal practices by candidates or agents. There should be clear and robust mechanisms for challenging the results of elections, and he is right to say that they should include appropriate, proportionate and accessible safeguards. The Government’s view is that that is the case under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues of cost, including the overall cost, and made a specific point about a court’s ability to apportion costs. My understanding is that courts have a wide discretion under section 154 of the Act to apportion costs. He raised a specific case that I will endeavour to look at after the debate and consider what he said in the light of it.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about proportionality. Although there may be technical reasons why a returning officer may have declared a particular result, revoking the election of somebody is a significant step and should not be done lightly. Although the hon. Gentleman suggested cases in which it might be considered only an administrative matter, if we think a little more
18 July 2011 : Column 768
about it we realise that those of us who have been elected would not want our elections to be overturned by some relatively straightforward process. It should be difficult to overturn an election, and we need to strike a balance in the level of proportionality.
Notwithstanding the relatively recent case of Phil Woolas, it is also worth saying that the election petition device—certainly for parliamentary elections—is rare. There have only been seven petitions issued against the results of UK parliamentary elections since 1997, and only two of those have been successful. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it would not be healthy if we had regular challenges.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. The High Court in the Woolas case confirmed that section 144 of the 1983 Act said that decisions of the electoral courts were final insofar as matters of fact were concerned. The hon. Gentleman was right about that, but I do not agree that that was a misconsolidation of the 1983 Act. If he goes back to the 1868 Act—I will not go as far back as the 400 years that he suggested—he will see that it was also clear that matters of fact were final decisions that the election court could take. In the Woolas case, the High Court made it clear that the decisions about the application of the law were judicially reviewable—
John Mann: The anomaly is that for a criminal case the law has been changed and allows an appeal, as the Fiona Jones case demonstrated. In a civil case, no appeal is allowed, and that surely is neither rational nor fair.
Mr Harper: I shall come on to that point in a moment. I just wished to make the distinction clear between matters of fact and the application of the law, which—to be fair—the hon. Gentleman did. The High Court made it clear that it was possible for judicial review of how the election court had applied the law.
On the basis of that decision, I do not think that the law needs to be changed to clarify the decision that matters of law can be appealed, although there was confusion in the reports of the case about whether Phil Woolas was appealing or requesting judicial review.
It is for Members to weigh up the issues, taking into account the hon. Gentleman’s point that we never know when we might be the subject of one these petitions. However, we must balance against that the need for a level of speed in the process. When Phil Woolas sought a judicial review, the High Court concluded on the justification for finality on fact:
“Election petitions must be determined with urgency. Finality in the determination is of great importance for not only must the electors have a representative in Parliament, but in times when majorities are small, the absence of a Member can be significant.”
A balance needs to be struck in this process between getting the right decision and getting it quite speedily. He raised several points about that matter. The Government keep it under review, but at the moment we are not persuaded by his arguments.
At the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman raised a more general issue about party funding. He will know that the coalition Government have made a commitment to deal with party funding—hopefully, on a consensual basis. We are waiting for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to publish its report. The committee might make proposals that we can take as a basis for
18 July 2011 : Column 769
conversations between the parties and that might deal with some of the issues he has raised. He also made a point about the danger of political arguments being used to try to overturn elections. I think that the High Court made clear the distinction between false statements of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct and their political or public position—a statement had to be one or the other, but could not be both. Members when approving literature and others when thinking about challenging us should bear it in mind that it is not about running off to court every time someone says something about someone’s political position.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about things that get authorised by us. The legislation makes it clear that candidates should be liable to have their election voided only if they or their election agents—not lots of other people, but specifically they or their election agents—have
18 July 2011 : Column 770
authorised or consented to those illegal practices. That should ensure that election candidates and their election agents are careful about what they authorise and approve the spending of money on. They should perhaps be careful not to delegate that responsibility to others. It is not the case that anybody involved in a campaign can put out pieces of paper—if they are not approved by the candidate or election agent, they cannot lead to what happened in the case of Mr Woolas.
In conclusion, the Government agree that there should be proportionate and accessible procedures for challenging elections. We will keep the current position under review, and I will consider the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, particularly on costs, and come back to him one way or the other.