7.8 pm
Sir George Young:
Briefly, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, asked why we had not put back to the House the original
12 Mar 2012 : Column 84
proposition about lay members. We dealt with that in our response to the Procedure Committee’s report. Basically, what we said was that on 2 December, the House of Commons agreed without Division to a motion that endorsed the principle that lay members should sit on the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government do not believe it necessary for the House to be asked to restate its acceptance of a principle that it has already agreed without Division. Indeed, there has been broad acceptance of that principle in the debate this evening.
I am obviously grateful that those who have tabled amendments have said that they do not propose to press them to a Division—a tribute to the eloquence that I must have used at the beginning of this debate.
The final question that I was asked was about the so-called golden share. I am convinced that the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee will continue to do what has been done in the past: namely to secure unanimous reports on the matters that come before him—or, indeed, her. While I chaired the Committee, I do not think we ever had a vote. I therefore very much hope that it will not be necessary for anybody to table a minority report. However, the fact that the lay members have that option will reassure people outside that the Committee has a broader base than it has had so far, and will avoid the accusation that this is some sort of gentlemen’s club that deals leniently with its members. On that basis, I hope that we can agree the motion.
Pay for chairs of Select Committees
That—
(1) this House expresses the opinion that, from the date specified in paragraph (2) of this resolution, the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), as amended by the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), should be further amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting Committee on Standards’.
(2) The date specified for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.— (Sir George Young.)
PAY FOR CHAIRS OF SELECT COMMITTEES (No. 2)
Queen’s Recommendation signified.
That—
(1) From the date specified in paragraph (2) of this resolution, the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), as amended by the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 (Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)), be further amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting ‘Committee on Standards’.
(2) The date specified for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.— (Sir George Young.)
12 Mar 2012 : Column 85
Code of Conduct
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): We now come to the debate on the code of conduct and on all-party groups. Motion 5 relates to the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the revised code of conduct, which will be debated together with motion 6, which relates to all-party groups. Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mr Charles Walker—
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): And Lorely Burt.
Madam Deputy Speaker: And Lorely Burt. I call Mr Kevin Barron to open the debate.
7.11 pm
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): I beg to move motion 5.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following: Amendment (a) to motion 5 and motion 6 on all-party groups.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you rightly say, there are two motions on the Order Paper in my name. The first is the more important: it invites the House to approve a revised code of conduct. The House of Commons has long had resolutions covering conduct, but the idea of a code of conduct is relatively recent. It was not until 1995 that the House endorsed the principle of such a code. Since then, the code has been revised, in 2002 and in 2005. This is only the fourth version of the code since the first version was approved in 1996.
In approving the code of conduct today, the House will be setting the framework for the rules that will, I hope, last for the remainder of this Parliament and into the next. It is important to be clear about what the code is for. It is not a rule book that sets out precise instructions about what is and is not permissible in each case. As the commissioner has set out in a memorandum attached to our report, it is a document that establishes
“broad high-level principles in relation to the main areas of a Member’s conduct”
“provides a high-level statement of the specific rules to which Members will be held to account”.
All those who responded to the commissioner’s consultation supported this approach. Relying on detailed rules designed to meet every eventuality creates the risk that people will be encouraged to game the system. We have only to look at the creativity of tax avoidance schemes to see that. The code has a broader function: it helps us to ensure that we behave in a way that is consistent with the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles, which are part of the code and which underpin its provisions. Where appropriate, the code is supplemented by more detailed statements of some of the rules, such as the guide to the rules, and the rules on the use of House facilities, but Members have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that they abide by the principles of the code.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the task of reviewing the code and making recommendations to the Committee. In 2002, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that this should be done once in each Parliament. Following the expenses scandal, we judged it better to defer a review of the code in the
12 Mar 2012 : Column 86
last Parliament, in order to give Members of the new Parliament an opportunity to review it in the light of experience.
The commissioner’s memorandum to the Committee sets out all the changes to the code clearly, and explains the reasoning behind each of them. Our report focuses on all the provisions that we consider most significant. Broadly speaking, the commissioner’s proposals have the effect of making the code clearer and removing some repetitions and infelicities. The most significant proposed change is in paragraph 2 of the code. The current code
“does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,
but it does extend to their wider public lives. Our proposal is that the code will no longer apply to Members’ wider public lives. As the commissioner points out, Members’ behaviour in their wider public life will be policed by other regulatory bodies, and there will be no need for the House to intervene.
There is an important proviso to the exclusion from the code of private and personal lives or wider public life. Those areas should be excluded unless
“such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
That is not an entirely new provision. Paragraph 15 of the present code stipulates that Members should
“never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
Personal life is currently excluded from the code, but a Member’s wider public life is not. The code will extend only to conduct which
“significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.
That is a very high hurdle indeed.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment, which also stands in my name would prevent the commissioner from becoming involved in issues that were entirely private, while leaving scope for the investigation of breaches in which a personal matter crossed over into a political matter?
Mr Barron: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I was about to move on to talk about the amendment, and we can look at that question in a moment.
The amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I am sure that he will explain it later in the debate. It raises significant questions. As I understand it, the amendment would mean that matters relating to a Member’s private and personal life which damaged the reputation and integrity of the House or of Members generally would remain within the scope of the code, but that the commissioner would be precluded from investigating complaints about such matters.
That raises a number of difficult questions. How would the boundaries of private and personal lives be defined? Would a matter remain private and personal if, for example, it had led to criminal behaviour or a failure to comply with civil obligations? Does something remain purely private and personal when it has been running all over the press and the internet for six or seven days? What is an investigation? Would the commissioner be precluded from giving a Member the chance to put his or her side of the story in private, rather than before the
12 Mar 2012 : Column 87
Committee as a whole? If the commissioner were unable to investigate extreme cases involving a Member’s personal and private life, would the Committee be expected to investigate them? If so, the Member’s safeguards would be reduced, as the Committee would investigate and pronounce sentence. I would feel uncomfortable about that. We are an adjudication Committee; we do not carry out investigations. The amendment seems to suggest that we might do so, however.
I understand colleagues’ fears that complaints could flood in about private lives, and that the commissioner might have to investigate matters that were properly no one’s business but that of the Member concerned. That is not what is intended. The House should have trust in the commissioner, in the Committee and in itself. Serious cases of a fall in standards should be decided on the Floor of the House, and not by the commissioner or by the Committee.
I am confident that the commissioner will not investigate purely private matters. If some future commissioner did so, I am confident that the Committee would take a robust approach, and that any serious sanction recommended by the Committee would come to the House, which would decide whether it was merited. I ask Members to have faith that all those involved, including the House, would use common sense if these measures were ever applied. I, for one, hope that they never will be.
The new provision is intended only for extreme circumstances, described by the commissioner as those in which a Member’s conduct in certain extremely limited circumstances is so serious and so blatant that it causes significant damage to the reputation of the House. In my judgment, it would be even more damaging to the reputation of the House and to the public’s confidence in the code of conduct—which is one of its key purposes—if the House were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give an example of something “purely private and personal” that he believes would fall within the scope as he has just defined it?
Mr Barron: Yes. Let us say a Member had committed fraud, not against the public purse—
Mr Barron: This is a hypothetical example, but let me carry on with it. Let us say that a Member committed fraud, not against the public purse but against a family member, and it was argued that this was a purely personal matter. Let us say that this Member was sentenced in a criminal court for six months; would that not be a matter for this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. After putting a question to a Member, Mr Brady should wait for the answer before intervening again; otherwise, we lose the flow.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 88
Mr Brady: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has answered my question in one sense, in that the only example he has adduced is one that is patently not “purely private and personal”, but criminal. By definition, then, it would not fall within the scope of the amendment.
Mr Barron: I have to say that I am not too sure about that, as I do not know the intent behind the amendment, which does not make things as clear as the change in the code does. It could be argued on a point of law that the action taken was not a matter for Parliament because it was a personal action. It might be a criminal action—
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Barron: Wait. Under the circumstances I described, when someone was sentenced to six months in jail, according to the law and according to the current rules of this House, that individual concerned—obviously, I hope this never happens—would remain a Member because we do not have the legal provisions to get rid of him at present. That is something that we need to consider.
Mr Cash: We are looking at paragraph 15 of the current code of conduct and paragraph 16 of the amended code of conduct. It is curious that the wording has been changed. Paragraph 15, which is where we are at the moment and seems to me to be sensible, says:
“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust”—
“and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
The key is “into disrepute”, and it is well known; everyone understands it. Now, for some reason—I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain it—paragraph 16 says simply:
“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”,
but leaves out the whole question of disrepute. What is the difference and why the change?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. First, interventions should be brief. Secondly, I can see that many Members have the code of conduct with them, so the hon. Gentleman could have simply referred to the two paragraphs and the pertinent words in them.
Mr Barron: I will come back to that, if I may, but I want to carry on citing what the commissioner said in the memorandum, which the Committee accepted. He continued:
“But the conduct would need to be so serious and so blatant as to make it imperative that the House be given the opportunity to consider the damage done to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
The code does not seek to judge the behaviour as right or wrong—only the effect it has on the reputation and
12 Mar 2012 : Column 89
standing of the House. In my view, that is a hugely important thing to defend in our democracy, particularly after the events of the last four years.
Let me deal with other issues that we need to look at. The Government are currently consulting on proposals to allow the House to decide whether or not to permit the opening of a recall petition in cases where the House considers a Member’s conduct warrants it. Does that mean purely in respect of their public life, or does it mean in their private or personal life as well? I think that we stray into these issues with the amendment, which is why I think the House would be better to stand back from it and have a look at things in the round at a later stage. Without a provision such as the one I am proposing, the House risks being either ineffectual, because the code does not allow it to deal with behaviour that everyone agrees is reprehensible, or arbitrary because it takes action even though such behaviour is not covered by the code. That seems to be the intention. The alternative is that we end up relying on legal semantics to decide whether something is still “purely personal and private”, which is absolutely not how the code should operate.
As our report says, this is a provision for extreme circumstances. It does not invite the Committee or the House to judge a Member’s purely private and personal relationships and will not be used to do so. This is not to turn the House into a moral arbiter, but to allow it to protect the integrity of Parliament. It is a judgment on the effect of a Member’s conduct on that vital objective, not a judgment on the Member’s morals.
I cannot support the amendment, but I can suggest an alternative, more appropriate, way forward. The commissioner consults the Committee on certain matters. For example, if someone is referred to the police because the commissioner is concerned about a police investigation that might have implications for the criminal law, the commissioner comes to the Committee and provides evidence to show why the referral should take place. We are then asked either to agree it or reject it. Paragraph 104 of the guide to the rules also makes it clear that the Committee expects to be consulted before accepting an investigation of a complaint against a former Member, a complaint that goes back more than seven years, or one where a member has asked the commissioner to investigate allegations without being the subject of a specific complaint. With a self-referral, the commissioner has to come before the Committee and ask our permission for this to take place. The commissioner is currently consulting on revisions to the guide to the rules.
Let me say to the House and to those who tabled the amendment that I would be happy to ask the Committee to consider adding consideration of complaints relating to a Member’s private and personal life to the category of matters for which the commissioner should not accept investigation without first consulting the Committee.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con):
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would want to point out that the commissioner has tried in the new version to separate what are aspirations for us all to behave well from things that we really should not do. If my hon. Friend were to look at page 42 of the review of the code, he would see that paragraph 15 is now different because of the separation in part 2 of certain aspirational requirements of the code from those
12 Mar 2012 : Column 90
things that we really must not do, which appear in the later parts of the code. It is largely a stylistic matter. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman might want to make that point.
Mr Barron: Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech. He is a hard-working member of the Committee, as well as a member of other Committees that look into standards in public life. He is well worth listening to.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): I apologise for not being in my place for the start of the debate; I was rather taken aback by the speed of previous proceedings. Let me try to put it this way. Building on what the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, would he accept that the purpose of paragraph 16A is to create a presumption against investigation of private life unless the Committee determines in its judgment that such an investigation should take place?
Mr Barron: Yes, I understand that point, but I fear that the intention could be misinterpreted. I fully understand the issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, and I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne will tell us about the amendment in more detail. If it is withdrawn, it will be perfectly possible to return to the issue when the revised guide to the rules comes before us in the not-too-distant future. That revision to the guide will be more detailed than what appears in the current three-page code of conduct, which is out for consultation. If the Committee itself has not proposed that the commission should consult before opening an inquiry into personal and private matters, the House could insert such a provision, but I feel that the provision would be more helpful in the guidance than in a code of conduct that tends to contradict elements of it.
The other important clarification is the introduction of a new paragraph 15 making it clear that Members are personally responsible for the extent to which their use of expenses and allowances accords with the rules. Clearly there is nothing new in that. The current Members’ handbook warns Members that the facilities and services of the House are provided to assist Members in their parliamentary work and should be used appropriately.
Defining parliamentary purposes is, of course, not easy. Members’ roles are various, and we are, with very rare exceptions, elected as party candidates and uphold our parties in Parliament. That is very different from using public funding for party campaigning, or to support party organisations. Having considered the definition extremely carefully, the Committee recommends that the rules make it clear that public money should not be used to
“confer undue advantage on a political organisation”.
Most of the other changes consist of clarifications and re-ordering to make the code more coherent. One change that has attracted some comment is the proposal to remove paragraph 12 of the code, which refers to the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials. We suggest that it should be included in a new paragraph 13, which would also cover the declaration and registration of interests in the House. That would make it clear that Members should
“always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
12 Mar 2012 : Column 91
That is a clarification rather than a substantive change. Its roots lie in one of the more painful cases that the Committee has had to consider: the so-called Lobbygate, in which Members were drawn into discussing jobs that they might undertake after they had left the House. One of the cases arising from that involved the failure of my good friend Mr Richard Caborn to declare an interest in a meeting with the chairman of a health authority. At the time, it was argued that the rules governing declaration did not cover such cases, as the person concerned was not a Minister or a civil servant. Our judgment was that the spirit of the rules was clear: their purpose was to ensure that Members were transparent in their dealings with people who might be in a position to influence public policy or the spending of public money. However, we believed that the rules could be better expressed, and these changes achieve that.
One of the great sadnesses involved in dealing with standards cases is that we must deal with what comes before us. The Committee cannot simply refuse to look into a matter because it was a case of entrapment or a single transgression in a distinguished career, and there are a limited number of sanctions that it can recommend to the House. It is a mark of the respect and affection in which Richard Caborn is held that extremely senior people have asked the Committee to reconsider his case. We have considered the matter carefully on more than one occasion, but ultimately we decided that we had considered the rules carefully at the time of our original finding.
It may help, however, if I discuss some of the matters that were set out clearly in the original report and debate. The commissioner and the Committee agreed that the breach of the rules was inadvertent. As I said at the time, the penalty that we proposed was
“intended to be light, because we recognised that Mr Caborn did not intend to breach the rules or to bring the House or its Members generally into disrepute.”
An inadvertent slip should not obscure Mr Caborn’s long record of distinguished public service, and I hope that it does not do so.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): As one of those who made representations to my right hon. Friend on behalf of my former colleague the then Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Central, I welcome the tenor and nature of his speech. Does he agree that in future, and specifically in the guidance that is to be offered, there should be absolute transparency about the operation of the Committee and about basic rules of fairness? For instance, should the guidance not make clear what is a constituency matter and what is not? Richard Caborn has rightly argued that that was a problem in the interpretation of the previous rule.
Mr Barron: I do not want to go into any great detail, but the changes in the code are intended to do precisely that. They are intended to clarify areas so that they are not open to interpretation—or, some would argue, misinterpretation—in years to come.
The code does not need radical revision, but it does need to evolve to meet the changing expectations and circumstances of not just the House of Commons but
12 Mar 2012 : Column 92
the public outside, and, as I have said, it needs to be as clear as possible. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the commissioner for his thorough consideration of the code and the work that he has done to produce a clearer, more coherent document, which I commend to the House. I hope that those who tabled the amendment will reconsider their position, but we will be able to revisit it. The guidance will reassure the House that no commissioner will be able to forage into areas that would be unfair on Members of Parliament, and I hope that that will be acknowledged.
I also hope that the second motion will prove entirely uncontroversial. It introduces an additional register to record the interests of those who provide secretariats for all-party groups. It will deal with an anomaly between the registration requirements for staff of all-party groups and those for Members’ staff. It will make the arrangements easier to administer, and will reduce the risk that, owing purely to inadvertence, interests will not be registered. The proposal is the result of a paper from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, and the Committee is grateful to her for it. The staff of all-party groups are currently required to register only income from employment, whereas secretaries and research assistants are also required to register gifts, benefits and hospitality. The motion proposes that the registration requirements should be the same for both groups.
The motion also proposes the transferring of the requirement to register to the staff member from the Member who is the registered contact for the all-party group, who may not be closely involved in the group’s administration. That would make it easier to ensure that the registration requirements are complied with, as the relevant forms can be issued with pass applications, and it will not be necessary for an officer of the group to take such action. As Members may know, the Speakers of the two Houses have set up a bicameral working group to consider all-party groups. I am a member of it, as are others who are in the Chamber this evening. There may be more changes to come, but there is no need for us to delay this change.
I trust that the House will approve my modest proposal to streamline and tighten the registration requirements for staff of all-party groups. Indeed, I hope that it will agree to both motions. I look forward to ending any misgivings relating to one of the reports at a later stage in our proceedings.
7.37 pm
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of his Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A great deal of thought has gone into their review, and much of what is suggested makes perfect sense. However, my amendment seeks to address and limit the no doubt well-intentioned recommendation that will allow the commissioner to broaden his remit into investigating and adjudicating on Members’ conduct in their wider private and personal lives. I believe that that proposed intrusion into Members’ private and personal lives is a step too far, and I am worried about where it may lead the commissioner and the House if left unamended.
Justifying an extension of the commissioner’s powers, the Committee states on page 11 of its report, paragraph 2, that
12 Mar 2012 : Column 93
“The Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives or in the wider conduct of their public lives unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
If deconstructed, however, that statement, far from limiting the new powers of the commissioner in the area of Members’ private and personal lives, gives him almost unlimited scope to investigate any action committed in this space on the basis that it is potentially damaging to the reputation of Parliament and its Members. A less generous, but accurate, interpretation of paragraph 2, page 11, would read as follows: “The code will seek to regulate the conduct of Members of Parliament in their purely private and personal lives, if it is the view of the commissioner and the Committee that their actions could be deemed significantly to damage the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”
I worry about where this new activism by the commissioner might lead. Over the weekend, I racked my brain to try and imagine scenarios in Members’ private lives that would trigger the interest of the commissioner, and I could only come up with two topics: the bedroom and the bottle. In common with most people, these are the two weaknesses that seem most likely to compromise Members of Parliament in their private lives.
On page 24 of the report, the commissioner argues that his interest is warranted on the basis that
“a Member of Parliament is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”
I dispute that view. Despite living in his constituency full-time, the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne—namely, myself—is, on occasion, most certainly off duty, and be assured, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were not off duty on occasions, I would slowly, but surely, go mad. Perhaps that point has already been reached.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I find it refreshing that the commissioner thinks we are never off duty. I wonder whether that will be reflected in the Senior Salaries Review Body review of our salaries.
Mr Walker: My hon. Friend is leading me into territory into which I should not stray in this debate.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): May we think about a recent case that the Committee considered? A Member might have had a private meeting, perhaps with another family member who was a businessman, and in which there was a discussion about funding and payment. During that meeting, the Member might have utilised his position as a Member, and that might have become public knowledge, although the meeting was private. I am sympathetic to where my hon. Friend wants to go, but I am bothered that we have not looked at this issue properly and I would like him to consider putting his point but—as the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), said—then allowing us to look at it carefully later, to ensure that we do not err.
Mr Walker: I will take that into consideration, and I acknowledge the spirit in which the point has been made.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 94
Oliver Heald: May I return to the theme I was developing earlier, in what was described as a very long intervention? I shall try to be briefer this time. The commissioner suggests that some of the new rules might be split. We used to have rule 2, stating that the rules do not
“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives”,
whereas rule 16 said Members must not bring the House into disrepute, which was, in a sense, a mop-up rule. Matters are set out in a more coherent way now, but there is no real change.
Mr Walker: I disagree with my hon. Friend about that. The commissioner is clearly trying to give himself powers to investigate Members’ private and personal lives, which is why this amendment has been tabled.
The commissioner’s interpretation of a Member’s status is at odds with that of another regulatory body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which states in its consultations and press releases that a fundamental principle of its scheme is that MPs
“should be treated…as far as possible like other citizens.”
The various regulatory bodies that oversee and adjudicate on our activities cannot reasonably expect to have it both ways. The public now rightly demand that Members of Parliament should face the same rigours that they do in their daily lives. The flip-side of that must be that parliamentarians, “like other citizens”, also have the right to a private life and private space—and in this private space people will, on occasions, make mistakes.
It is in the nature of our job—this vocation—that if these mistakes are large enough, they will be picked up and reported by the press, with all the opprobrium, shame and upset that goes with having our private calamities played out on a national stage. I look back at the personal agonies that the former hon. Members for Croydon Central and Winchester went through in the last Parliament, and I shudder to think how much worse things would have been for them if the parliamentary commissioner, however well intentioned, had been conducting his own forensic investigation into their actions, dragging in family, friends and perhaps other aggravating parties. There would have been months and months of investigation, all in the name of protecting the notional honour of the House.
The Committee does not dismiss the possibility of such investigations. It offers a well-meaning but vague assurance on page 6 of its report that
“like the Commissioner, we do not think the Committee or the House should be drawn into judging a Member's purely private and personal relationships.”
Why is that sentence not worded more forcefully? Why does it equivocate when it could say that “the commissioner and the Committee will not allow the House to be drawn into judging a Member’s purely private and personal relationships”? Why is that assurance not given by the commissioner and the Committee? The reason, I believe, is that it cannot be given because the commissioner knows full well that, almost exclusively, personal scandals and misfortunes are where the action lies.
Oliver Heald:
Does my hon. Friend’s amendment not create the same problem? If the matter in question were not only to relate to a Member’s conduct, but also affected their ability to be an MP—rank dishonesty
12 Mar 2012 : Column 95
falling short of crime, for example—the commissioner would be able to investigate. Does my hon. Friend’s amendment make any difference, therefore?
Mr Walker: In his usual helpful way, the broad-minded Leader of the House made it clear in his response to the consultation that he was not aware of any recent cases where a Member’s conduct in their purely private and personal life had been so outrageous that the House or the general public would have wanted action to be taken against the Member. Those pushing this proposal cannot come up with any sensible examples.
The Leader of the House has been in this place for almost 40 years, but while it seems he cannot think of anything worth investigating, the commissioner clearly can. That is why he is promoting this change to the current code of conduct.
Mr Cash: This issue boils down to how the provisions are drafted. No one has any serious doubt about the intentions and the parameters, but problems do arise. The code states that it does not
“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely”—
I emphasise that word—“private and personal lives”, or in the conduct of their wider lives. Rule 16, however, says:
“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage.”
Therefore, on the one hand we are told the code does not seek to “regulate”, yet on the other hand we are told Members shall “never” undertake certain actions. I do not think there is any real doubt about what is intended, but I am worried about the interpretation that might be drawn if this proposal is passed. That is the problem. This is more an issue of drafting than of intention.
Mr Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I appreciate that the Committee and the commissioner are at pains to point out that it is not their intention to create a “red top” charter. I accept that that may not be their intention, but the fact remains that real reputational threat to this place is contained in this flawed proposal.
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend said he wanted an example. I did give him one, but he has not responded to it. It is a financial, not a lurid, example, and I would like him to consider it.
Mr Walker: The example given was fraud, and it was also extraordinarily tortuous.
The Leader of the House, whom I do not often pray in aid of my arguments—as he knows—has been here for 40 years and he cannot think of anything in that time that would have required this power to have been exercised. We in this place are brilliant at inventing new misdemeanours and crimes as sticks with which to beat ourselves.
Mr Syms:
My hon. Friend talked about bed and the bottle. I have never been asked to go on a billionaire’s yacht, although it is something that one would perhaps look forward to, but some Members of this House do stay with important people when on holiday. Does he
12 Mar 2012 : Column 96
think that this proposal will give another hand to those who want MPs to have to declare where they are going on holiday?
Mr Walker: My hon. Friend leads me into the final part of my speech. Let us be clear that however well intentioned the power the commissioner is seeking, it will mean that Members’ private and personal lives will be in the ambit of investigation. Their actions will be scrutinised by the commissioner and a subjective view will be taken of whether or not those actions could cause significant damage to the reputation of the House. Every sexual peccadillo, domestic dispute or unguarded cross word would lead to tabloid calls for the commissioner to take action—“Something must be done”, the headlines will cry. The commissioner argues that in the event of an undefined personal scandal, the House’s status would be diminished if it
“were unable to take action to express its disapproval and uphold its standards in such circumstances.”
In a sense, that sounds like a return, after 17 years, to “back to basics”. We know what a disaster that was; we had all these moral judgments applied to the activities of Members. The one example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did provide would be covered by criminal law in any case, so it is not relevant to this debate.
In conclusion, I am fully aware that Members of Parliament can do bad and unethical things in their capacity as Members of Parliament, which is why these standards and the code of conduct are so important. As importantly, I am also aware that people can do silly and stupid things regardless of who they are, because none of us was born an angel or a saint. So I strongly believe that the House should confine itself to worrying about the matters that directly pertain to the job of being an elected representative, and not those that relate to general human weakness or stupidity. For that reason, I urge the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, for whom I have a huge amount of time, and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) and for Mole Valley, of whom I am extraordinarily fond, despite our little spat this evening, to support my amendment. On this occasion, it is time that the House recognised that the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne is arguing for the virtuous and should carry the day.
7.52 pm
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): We welcome the review of the code of conduct by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges commenting on the draft code and the changes that the commissioner has suggested. May I also say at the outset that Labour supports the changes that he has suggested for all-party groups?
As the Committee notes, the code was last revised in 2005 and several areas of it could be usefully clarified, so there is much that we welcome in the review. It is sensible that the code of conduct has remained one of high-level principles, rather than detailed rules. As the chairman of Standards for England noted in his consultation response, there is a danger that having a set of rules
“which is too tightly defined can lead to a complexity which makes understanding of the rules too difficult to grasp which is therefore counter-productive”.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 97
We welcome the fact the commissioner has rejected such an overly prescriptive rules-based approach. There is much that we can welcome in the report, so rather than go into great detail about that, I wish to concentrate on areas where we have some concerns, one of which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
Labour Members believe that the existing code of conduct is working well. That is not only a tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and his Committee, but it is reflected in the responses to the consultation, which did not throw up any major concerns with the status quo. Therefore, any suggestion that the code should be extended into areas not currently covered would need to be backed up by a convincing argument.
In his consultation, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards asked:
“Should the scope of the Code extend to some aspects of a Member’s private and personal life? If so, how should that be expressed in the Code?”
The parliamentary Labour party’s response to the consultation said no to that, as we feared that it would turn the code of conduct into a code of morals. That remains our view, and we are puzzled by the commissioner’s recommendation on this point. The proposed revision to the code states:
“the Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of Members in their purely private and personal lives”.
We agree with that approach, because the code should not seek to do that. However, the proposed new code would go on to state:
“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
That is the point that we have all been wrestling with in the debate.
That extension appears to suggest that we, as Members of this House, are entitled to a private life—we are all human, so we are entitled to one under article 8 and the Human Rights Act 1998—unless the commissioner rules that we are not. As the Leader of the House pointed out in his response to the consultation,
“extending the scope of the Code explicitly to cover Members’ private and personal lives could, as you note in the consultation paper, lead to their human rights being infringed.”
What threshold would result in the code coming into action? We are not told. The commissioner’s response to the consultation says that it would be “extremely limited circumstances” that are
“so serious and so blatant”.
However, he gives no further indication of what those might be. Such comments cause further confusion, rather than illuminate what the new situation might be. He gives no clues as to what he thinks those circumstances should be.
So what are these “extremely limited circumstances”? Some attempts have been made in the debate to define them, but those have been unsatisfactory. I am sure if we stood on Westminster bridge and canvassed the views of those who passed by, we would find as many views on what those circumstances should be as people we spoke to. The current commissioner may take a narrow view of what constitute his “extremely limited circumstances”, but his successor may take a more or
12 Mar 2012 : Column 98
less narrow view. This is an unsatisfactory situation. The Leader of the House noted in his response to the consultation that we should be
“wary of extending the Code to deal with a purely hypothetical eventuality.”
As I said at the outset, the existing code is working well. What was needed was tweaking and clarification, not mission creep. Most of the proposed changes to the code are sensible and can easily be supported.
Oliver Heald: I rather agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was saying earlier. I do not think there is any intention to extend the scope of the code here. The existing code, before the amendments, did not apply to private conduct, but there was a general provision that no Member must act in a way that brought the House into disrepute. This is about clarifying what those two provisions mean in the amended code. I would have thought that that was something that should happen, even if the hon. Lady is not happy with the exact wording.
Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a particular point, but I do not think that what the commissioner has suggested is clear either and that is what we are struggling with at the moment. I may be alone in this, but I did not think that we faced a problem that needed the kind of revision that has got us into the confusing situation we are now in.
Members of Parliament are rightly accountable in the courts of law and under the code, as are people in other walks of life. But unlike lawyers, general practitioners or people in any of the other professions, Members of Parliament are accountable at the ballot box for their actions and they are accountable to their political party. The electorate are entitled to make a judgment about a Member’s private life, and about how effectively they pursue their constituency duty and how they treat their constituents—that is how democracy works—but I trust the common sense of the British people to make such judgments; we should leave judgments about morals to them.
7.58 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young): I welcome the chance to intervene briefly in this interesting debate, and I commend the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) for his speech in moving the motion and for his work on the Committee on Standards and Privileges during his time as Chair, including his work in producing the two reports we are considering today. The House will have noted what he said in response to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
I also commend the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, for his work as commissioner. His term of office concludes at the end of this year, and it is possible that this will be the last debate on the work of his office, in general terms, during it. He has faced a work load that neither he nor anyone else could have foreseen when he was first appointed, he has discharged his responsibilities conscientiously and effectively and been a source of wisdom and good sense for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its successive Chairs. I say that with added conviction as the Chair at the time of his appointment.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 99
The review of the code that the commissioner has carried out reflects the experience he has gathered during his term. The overwhelming majority of the changes he has proposed represent sensible changes, improving the clarity and structure of the code without affecting its overall scope and meaning. In particular, the changes help to distinguish the aspirational parts of the code from the adjudicable part.
I want briefly to touch on four areas that have attracted particular interest, namely the application of the code to hon. Members’ private lives, the code in relation to constituency responsibilities, personal responsibility for the use of resources, and the principle of equal application to all hon. Members.
On the first matter, the commissioner, the Committee and the House have wrestled, and are wrestling, with the vexed issue of how far the code applies to hon. Members’ private lives, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others. In my submission to the review, which has already been quoted, I said that the distinction between private and public lives was
“important, even if it is not always clear”.
I noted that an extension to private lives might lead to an infringement of human rights, a point also made in the submission by the chair of Standards for England.
I further pointed out that any such extension
“could also be used to justify intrusive and prurient media interest in Members’ private lives, on the basis that if the House chooses to concern itself with Members’ personal lives—however sparingly—then there should be no limits to the media doing likewise”.
Sir Menzies Campbell: As my right hon. Friend will know, the code must be read as a whole. Has he had time to look at paragraph 18, which provides:
“The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code”
and the following sentence, which states:
“Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House”?
If the investigation is into private life, that necessarily means that if a Member refused to answer a question on his or her private life, he or she could be regarded as breaching that part of the code.
Sir George Young: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Once an inquiry has been started by the commissioner, Members are obliged to co-operate and if they do not, they will face consequences from the Committee on Standards. That paragraph would then kick in.
The commissioner has concluded that being an hon. Member is a way of life. As he put it, an hon. Member
“is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”
I personally paused at the assertion that I am never off duty, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and other colleagues might have had the same reaction. I think that there are times when I am off duty. The commissioner’s conclusion is that an hon. Member’s conduct in both their private and wider public lives is excluded from the provisions of the code
12 Mar 2012 : Column 100
“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.
This is a very high hurdle for investigation, and that approach was endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The amendment, if the subject of a complaint related only to the conduct of a Member in his or her private and personal life, would have the effect of providing that it could not be investigated. I am confident that the Members who have proposed the amendment have no wish to argue that Members should be subject to special treatment that is not available to others. The issue at stake is simply whether there would ever be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the commissioner to undertake an investigation into a matter that did not intersect at all with an hon. Member’s conduct in his or her public capacity. That is a matter for the House and each hon. Member to consider and it is not an issue on which it is appropriate for the Government to take a collective view, although I am personally sympathetic to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
The House will also want to reflect on the offer made by the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee to take the House’s concern and address it in the revised guide, which, as I understand it, would leave the code unamended and insert an additional step in the process, in that the Committee would have to agree to the commissioner conducting an inquiry in this particular domain. I am sure that the House will welcome those offers and will want to reflect on them.
Another potential matter of contention is the application of the code to constituency matters. In his memorandum, the commissioner makes it clear that the way an hon. Member handles constituency business should not be adjudicable by the commissioner, and I agree. He suggests that the House would only wish to consider an instance that was
“so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House”.
I agree that it is very hard indeed to envisage these criteria being met.
On the third issue, in my submission to the review I supported proposals for redrafting the code in line with recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life
“so that the House has a clear basis to take action against any Member who has abused the IPSA scheme”.
The commissioner proposed to do that by means of a provision that stated that the use of public resources may not confer a political benefit. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has suggested a change, arising from its observation that it is unrealistic to expect that parliamentary activities legitimately funded from the political purse might never confer an indirect political benefit. The new code rightly makes it clear that Members should be clear that the use of public resources must always be in support of their parliamentary duties and should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. I agree that that formulation is in line with the original proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used the phrase “undue advantage”.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 101
Finally, the commissioner considered and rejected a number of proposals that would involve separate rules for hon. Members who were former Ministers or who were Opposition Front Benchers. He did so on the basis of the principle that
“the Code should apply equally to all Members”.
That is a principle that I wholeheartedly support.
The second motion, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, is more straightforward. It seeks the approval of the twenty-first report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which recommends extending the scope of registration to individual staff of all-party groups who hold passes and to transfer the onus of registration from the registered contact of the group to the staff member him or herself. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House stated in the debate on all-party groups on 7 February last year, all-party groups can play a valuable role provided they are transparent. That measure seems sensible and does not represent an abdication of responsibility by hon. Members who are officers of all-party groups. Instead, it reflects the proper situation whereby individuals who have the benefits of being a pass holder in this place should personally accept the responsibilities that flow from that.
I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the House coming to a decision on these vexed matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Mr Walker, do you intend to press your amendment to a Division?
Mr Charles Walker: I would be delighted if the Government would accept it, if they could, but otherwise I would like to press it to a Division.
8.8 pm
Mr Barron: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, before the amendment is pressed, I ask Members to remember my offer to look at the code of conduct and ensure that any commissioner—this current one or any in the future—would have to come to the House before considering any of the issues referred to in the amendment.
The current code states in paragraph 15:
“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
There is no mention in that paragraph of personal and private lives, or, indeed, of public lives, although they are mentioned in other parts of the code. The provision has never been enacted in such a way and I fear that if the House goes down the route of accepting that people’s personal and private lives are not covered by the code of conduct, that will be a step back. It seems to me that the House would be better advised to consider the genuine proposals that anybody wanting to look into someone’s private and personal life would have to come to the Committee to do so. This House should have confidence in its Members who sit on Committees and in the fact that we have an independent commissioner whom we appoint, whose terms and conditions we set and who is independent of us. It should have confidence in a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that operates in a non-party political way that was unanimous in saying
12 Mar 2012 : Column 102
we should accept the paper before us. We certainly are not unanimous in accepting the amendment. The House should have confidence in itself that if the commissioner or the Committee ever did something wholly wrong, the House could reject that.
Let me finish by saying to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on the Front Bench, who mentioned morals, that this is not about morals. I can tell the House, as the Chairman of the Committee, that if the commissioner came to me with a report about morals I would go around the Committee first before I would discuss the memorandum before us. It is not something we should do or that would be acceptable to Parliament or the general public. However, there are circumstances and occasions on which Members have gone overboard but have not been covered by the code. I genuinely think it would be wrong for us to agree to the amendment today. We can look at the guidance and these issues more widely if need be, but what is proposed would be a backward step. If the amendment is accepted the code will be weaker than the code I have in my hand. I genuinely think we should not do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Mr Walker, do you intend to press this to a vote?
Mr Charles Walker: I do: one’s personal and private life is one’s personal and private life.
Amendment made: (a), at end, add
‘, subject to the following amendment: After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
That this House takes note of the Nineteenth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 1579), and approves the revised Code of Conduct set out in the Annex to the Report, subject to the following amendment:
After paragraph 16 of the Code, there shall be inserted the following new paragraph:
“16A. The Commissioner may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives.”.’.
All-Party Groups
That
(1) this House agrees with the recommendations in the Twenty-first Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on Registration of Staff All-Party Groups (HC 1689); and
(2) accordingly the Resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989, 29 July 1998 and 7 February 2011, relating to the registration of interests be further amended by:
(a) leaving out paragraph 3 (f); and
(b) inserting a new paragraph 4:
“Holders of permanent passes as staff of All-Party Groups be required to register:
i. any paid employment for which they receive more than 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary; and
ii. any gift, benefit or hospitality they receive, if the gift, benefit or hospitality in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament and its value is over 0.5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary in the course of a calendar year.”.—(Mr Barron.)
12 Mar 2012 : Column 103
Localism Act 2011
8.12 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath): I beg to move,
That—
(1) The following new Standing Order be made—
‘Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders
(1) The Regulatory Reform Committee shall examine and report on—
(i) every draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
(ii) every draft order laid before the House under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011.
(2) In the case of every draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall consider the Minister’s recommendation under section 15(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) as to the procedure which should apply to it and shall report to the House any recommendation under that Act that a different procedure should apply.
(3) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) has an effect which is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured;
(c) strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
(f) is not of constitutional significance;
(g) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(h) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(4) In its consideration of a draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(ii) the committee shall include, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft order—
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant.
(5) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the negative or affirmative procedure under section 16 or 17 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order should be made (in the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter whether the recommendation was agreed without a division. (6) In relation to every draft order laid under section 7(2) of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 subject to the super-affirmative procedure under section 18 of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act; or
(c) no statement under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or revised draft order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act should be laid.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 104
(7) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is subject to the super-affirmative procedure and is being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (3) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(8) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the 2006 Act that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(7) of the 2006 Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(9) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 16(4) of the 2006 Act that the draft order be not made, or under section 17(3), 18(5) or 18(9) of the 2006 Act that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(10) In relation to every draft order laid under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether—
(a) the draft order should be proceeded with unamended under section 19(3) of that Act; or
(b) a revised draft order should be laid under section 19(7) of that Act; or
(c) no statement under section 19(3) of that Act or revised draft order under section 19(7) of that Act should be laid.
(11) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft order or revised draft order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft orders or revised draft orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (4) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
(12) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft orders being proceeded with under section 19(3) or 19(7) of the Localism Act 2011 that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(3) of that Act) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 19(7) of that Act) after the relevant statement is laid.
(13) In relation to every draft order or revised draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 19(5) or 19(9) of the Localism Act 2011 that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.’.
(2) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) be amended as follows—
(a) in line 5, at end, insert ‘, other than one laid under section 18 of the Act as applied by section 7 of the Localism Act 2011 or by section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’;
(b) line 12, at end, insert ‘; and to carry out its functions under Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(c) in line 78, at end, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order that is’;
(d) in line 79, after ‘procedure’, insert ‘and is’;
(e) in line 92, after ‘orders’, insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order and’;
12 Mar 2012 : Column 105
(f) in line 97, after second ‘order’ insert ‘referred to in paragraph (1)(i) of this order’;
(g) in line 134, at end, insert ‘or within paragraph (1) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’; and
(h) in line 148, at end, add ‘or under section 19 of the Localism Act 2011’.
(3) Standing Order No. 18 be amended as follows—
(a) leave out from ‘under’ in line 2 to ‘should’ in line 6 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure should be approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(b) leave out from ‘under’ in line 14 to ‘be’ in line 16 and insert ‘paragraph
(4) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order subject to the affirmative procedure be not approved, or has recommended under paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 141 or paragraph (7) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) that a draft order’;
(c) in line 25, after ‘141’, insert ‘or paragraph (5) of Standing Order (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders)’;
(d) in line 28, leave out ‘Act’, and insert ‘Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006’; and
(e) in the title, at end, insert ‘etc.’.
(4) Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended, in line 21, after ‘2006’, by inserting the words ‘any draft order laid before the House under or by virtue of section 7 or 19 of the Localism Act 2011 or section 5E of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’.
The motion may be rather long and complex—at one point in its gestation it was even longer and more complex—but it should not be controversial. Essentially, it provides for certain draft orders which are akin to draft orders under part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to be subject to Commons scrutiny in the same way as the draft orders under the 2006 Act. This will involve detailed consideration by the Regulatory Reform Committee followed by proceedings on the Floor of the House, with the nature of those proceedings reflecting the views of the Committee. The proposals follow consultation with the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee and the official Opposition. No objections have been voiced to the proposed method of proceeding. I have also spoken to the Chair of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who has confirmed that he is content with the proposed approach.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): What we now have is rather longer and more comprehensive but I think it does the job and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done.
Mr Heath: I am most grateful for that endorsement.
I shall confine my remarks to two matters—the drafting of the Standing Orders and an account of how the procedures will work. As I have already admitted, the proposals before us are complex, but the complexity flows from the complexity of the current provisions in Standing Order No. 141. An earlier version of the motion on which I consulted was even more complex
12 Mar 2012 : Column 106
and I was asked to describe this version of the motion as the “simplified” one. Although I am confident that this motion will work, and its provisions are explained in further detail in an explanatory memorandum, I am not convinced that it is as simple as the House would wish. The Procedure Committee has indicated a willingness to consider the overall approach enshrined in Standing Order No. 141 and in the new Standing Order, and I know the Regulatory Reform Committee will also have an interest in the matter. If those Committees were to propose a simpler approach that delivered the same outcome, I believe it would be welcomed by the House.
The nature of the order-making powers covered by the motion is described in the explanatory memorandum, so I shall not describe them now. Because the powers are broad and can involve change to primary legislation, the Localism Act 2011 provides for enhanced scrutiny arrangements, including a so-called super-affirmative procedure, by direct application of or by analogy with the scrutiny arrangements under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Commons Standing Orders currently assign the additional scrutiny powers under the 2006 Act to the Regulatory Reform Committee and we propose that the Committee should have the same role in respect of the new orders.
The Committee’s powers are extensive. It considers the merits of each order and the appropriateness of the proposed method of proceeding. It can conclude that a particular measure should not be proceeded with or should be subject to different proceedings. Its conclusions help to determine the procedures that are then followed on the Floor of the House. The motion enables the House to consider the new orders in the same way as orders under the 2006 Act. The proposals are complex and we have an open mind on their being simplified in due course. For the immediate future, to enable proper scrutiny to take place, I commend the motion to the House.
8.15 pm
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): The motion establishes the arrangements necessary for enacting the necessary scrutiny by this House of certain orders and draft orders. It is my understanding that the Liaison Committee attempted to find a simpler method for such scrutiny but could not arrive at a satisfactory way forward. It is therefore necessary to adopt the procedure used by the Regulatory Reform Committee for the scrutiny of these orders. The procedure is complicated, as Members will realise, but Members also recognise that effective scrutiny is important. On that note, will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the Government will be willing to review the arrangements if weaknesses in these arrangements become apparent?
We do not object to the adoption of Regulatory Reform Committee arrangements for the scrutiny of orders and draft orders arising from the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. That is not to say that we have changed our view of the Localism Act. We voted against it on Third Reading and think it wrong that the Secretary of State should have gathered so many extra powers to himself via its provisions—142 in fact. However, the Act is now passed into law and, on the scrutiny of some of the actions arising from its provisions, we have no objection to the adoption of arrangements that mirror exactly the procedures followed by the Regulatory Reform Committee.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 107
8.17 pm
Mr Heath: With the leave of the House, I will say a few more words. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her comments. I assure her that if a new and better procedure is developed we will of course put it before the House. Alternatively, if there are major difficulties with what we propose, we will wish to look at it again. In the meantime, I hope that the House will agree to the motion.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 108
Traveller Sites (Dorset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)
8.18 pm
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I am pleased that the House has disposed of its business rapidly so that we can have a proper debate on Travellers in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset. In a minute, one or two of my colleagues might run into the Chamber having been caught by the collapse of business.
Before I start, let me say that I have just emerged from hospital, having had appendicitis, and I would like to thank Oliver Allenby-Smith, his team and all the nurses on ward B4 of Poole hospital, who have been nursing me for five days. I am now on the mend and able to represent here my constituents in Dorset.
We all recognise the importance of making provision for Travellers. My experience throughout my political career is that if we make proper provision we have the legal powers to move people on from inappropriate places. It was a retrograde step when the John Major Government decided to move away from paying for pitches, because that diminished the infrastructure for many of the Traveller sites and has caused us problems ever since.
The difficulty in Dorset is that in 1996 Bournemouth and Poole both realised their aspirations of becoming unitary authorities again, and therefore strategic authorities. However, consideration was not given to the boundaries of either authority, so both remained fairly tightly drawn. From central Poole or central Bournemouth one can get to rural Dorset in about 10 or 15 minutes, so there is logic in having a policy for Travellers that encompasses not only Dorset county council, but the two other strategic authorities, Poole and Bournemouth.
Under the Housing Act 2004 Poole undertook a review of the housing need of Travellers. It carried out a consultation on the number of sites and came up with 20. It reduced that to three sites within its boundaries. One of the joys of having a local authority with no overall control is that the committee then decided to consult on all 20 sites. So I have many concerned and worried constituents who think they may well have a Traveller site in their own back yard.
I would like more co-ordination and co-operation among the three authorities. They all want to work together, but there are certain things that are causing a problem. One of the issues relates to policing, which does not impact directly on the Department for Communities and Local Government. The issue of joint transit provision is not one that strategic authorities are able to consider, because the Criminal Justice Act 2004 does not give the police powers to move Travellers across strategic authority boundaries. In Dorset, joint provision between lower-tier authorities is possible because under Dorset county council the higher tier is the strategic authority. Poole and Bournemouth do not have this opportunity because they themselves are both strategic authorities. Those authorities therefore have to provide facilities within area. That is not necessarily an easy fix. It seems bizarre that Dorset has one police force, the Dorset constabulary, yet under the law as it relates to policing, the force cannot move Travellers across Poole, Bournemouth or Dorset because they happen to be unitary authorities. That needs to be dealt with.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 109
I would like a Minister to set out when we are likely to get the Travellers review. It would be helpful to see what obligations the local authority has. Does the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the duty of co-operation in plan-making, set out whether that will override other duties? What we need is co-operation among the three authorities. It is logical and it follows from our history and our geography that they should work together. Both Bournemouth and Poole are happy to make their contribution in financial terms, but the very tight geographical boundaries that both have make it extremely difficult to identify sites which do not have another purpose. In my constituency in Poole, for example, the only green area we have is Parkstone golf club. To the west is water, and to the north is an area of outstanding natural beauty and green belt, so identifying an efficient site within Poole will be extremely difficult.
Then there are the issues of permanent sites and transit sites. It is important that there should be transit sites. The advantage of Poole is that the transit site could easily be only a few miles up the road in rural Dorset, yet at present we seem to be precluded from taking action. I should like more information on what is envisaged. Earlier this year the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) replied to a written question on Travellers from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). My right hon. Friend said that he understood that there was widespread concern about rules and guidance on Travellers sites. He stated that the Department for Communities and Local Government had published the new draft planning policy for Travellers sites for consultation in April 2011, but I still do not think we have clarity.
On a number of occasions I, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) have tried to pin the Government down to give us more specifics, but the Government have not been able to do so. The situation is difficult. Logic demands a collaborative approach among Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth in discharging our duties towards Travellers. We have not been able to do so because of slight legal impediments, the police impediment that I set out, and the lack of clarity.
I hope that the Minister will be able to set out clearly the requirements under the Localism Act 2011. I had great hopes of the Act. This is the great new dawn for local government. The Act specifically introduces a duty to co-operate in plan-making, although there are no definitions of what the duty consists of. The authorities are meant to come together to agree a plan strategically. This is, in effect, what is happening between the three strategic authorities, Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole, with the joint Gypsy and Traveller work. However, that does not mean that we can offload our responsibility to provide appropriate sites, and we would not wish to do so.
We are in a state of flux. The borough council wants to do the right thing, but because there is no overall control, it has consulted on too many sites and there are many worried people. Our geography and our history mean that identifying appropriate sites is very difficult. As I stated, we went from 20 sites down to three and
12 Mar 2012 : Column 110
consulted on the three. One of the three sites under serious consideration, which was in the Branksome triangle, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, is already being used for car parking for Liverpool Victoria and is therefore in employment use. It is very difficult for us to identify a site that could be used as a permanent or a transit site without losing employment land. We want to do the right thing, but that is extremely difficult because of our history and our geography. That is why I hope for some answers from the Minister.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate. Does he agree that one of the major issues that we face is uncertainty, which is upsetting and unsettling many members of the local communities that we both serve across the Bournemouth and Poole conurbation?
Mr Syms: I agree. That is an important point. As a local politician, I am trying to get some certainty, as I am sure is my hon. Friend, so that there is a much clearer sense of direction. Therefore, we need a few more answers from Ministers. If we do not get them tonight, clearly we might need to have further meetings with the Minister concerned. The uncertainty means that people are becoming much more worried than they need to be, not least because Poole is consulting on rather too many sites, some of which are not appropriate, and worrying a lot of people. My postbag is filling up with letters from people who have genuine concerns, as I am sure is my hon. Friend’s. Poole wants to do the right thing.
Conor Burns: One thing that is causing considerable anxiety locally is the fact that our councils are being forced to do the consultation that they are now undertaking. My understanding is that the consultation is part-funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government and that it is a central Government requirement on local government. The point my hon. Friend made a moment ago about definition and clarity around the Localism Act 2011 is extremely important in relation to the Minister's response.
Mr Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that the 2011 Act is a landmark piece of legislation, and we have high hopes that it will transform local government. He is right that we need a little more clarity on whether it will offset some of the other requirements that the Government have put on Poole. We want to do the right thing and provide sufficient sites. We want to provide what we have a duty to provide and to pay for it, but the difficulty is that he and I have extremely compact constituencies. It is difficult to find appropriate sites in our constituencies, yet there might be appropriate sites five or 10 minutes away from the conurbation. However, because we have unitary and strategic authorities it is very difficult to do that and leave Dorset constabulary in a situation where it can move Travellers on if it has to.
I know that Bournemouth has problems with Travellers on occasion and a number of temporary sites to deal with them at certain times of the year. Later in the debate I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West set out his constituents’ concerns on what is a difficult and worrying subject, but
12 Mar 2012 : Column 111
one on which we as politicians need to get more clarity. Essentially, we want three authorities to work together on this, which is the whole thrust of the 2011 Act and which they want to do. We want to combine financially and make provision for Travellers in the appropriate way; the most appropriate way might be for the three authorities to make that provision on a collective basis. That might mean not necessarily having the sufficient number of sites within the boundaries of Bournemouth or Poole.
We need more clarity, and I hope that we will get it from the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has similar views and concerns to mine and I would be interested to hear them, so that the Minister may reply with conviction and give us more reassurance on this very difficult policy issue that our local councillors have to comply with. That is really all I have to say. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in his place and am sure that he will respond brilliantly to the debate. If we do not get the answer we demand tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West and I will look forward to further meetings with Ministers so that we can meet our objectives of providing for Travellers, safeguarding our constituents and getting efficient and effective local government.
8.32 pm
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): I begin by again congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing this debate and apologise for arriving a moment late. This afternoon I travelled up from the constituency of Bournemouth West, which I have the honour of representing, after attending the opening of a visitor facility in a café at the Cherry Tree nursery by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. That is relevant to the debate only because the nursery is surrounded by a large amount of greenfield land that has previously been occupied by illegal Gypsy and Traveller encampments, causing enormous distress to the people who work there—some wonderful young and old people who suffer from severe learning difficulties. The presence of those communities, often unannounced, has been a great source of concern to those people.
My hon. Friend is putting on the Minister responsible, who is yet to arrive, an extraordinary expectation in hoping that he will respond in detail to all the points that we are making, but I am sure that his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who will reply to the debate, is taking all these points on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole went to the heart of the problem we face, which is that the previous Government’s policy remains in place. Before Christmas I spoke with the head of Gypsy and Traveller policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government, a lady called Nicola Higgins, who confirmed that the previous Government’s policy is still in place.
In the run-up to the most recent general election, we raised our local electorates’ hopes and expectations that the matter would be a priority of the Government who
12 Mar 2012 : Column 112
are now in office. Ministers still make the point that the Localism Act 2011 will give our local authorities the powers that they need to get together in groups and remove from them the requirement that each must have their own, separate, single-authority provision. My hon. Friend who secured this debate and I want the Government to complete that unfinished business and to move with some speed to reassuring our local communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) told the Bournemouth Daily Echo that he had been assured—according to my hon. Friend, by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, our hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—that
“once the Localism Bill becomes law, councils will have an opportunity to re-submit their local plans without the obligation to automatically identify gypsy traveller locations.”
In a letter to me, however, the Under-Secretary indicated that
“every local housing authority is required under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of travellers.”
The ongoing consultation throughout Dorset is being funded in part by money from the Department, so there is an urgent need for the Government to clarify when the powers that we promised local authorities will become available to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole mentioned that there are a couple of proposed sites.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): The hon. Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Poole (Mr Syms) are making compelling and straightforward arguments, and it is good to see so many Members on the Treasury Bench to hear them, but does the hon. Member for Bournemouth West think that the problem is a lack of transparency or a lack of urgency from the Department?
Conor Burns: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place after his no doubt successful visit to the Falkland Islands—and this on Commonwealth day. As he knows, sometimes Governments of all persuasions need a little push, and it is our constituents who are giving us a push as those sites go out to consultation.
The current consultation, which is being carried out by Baker Associates throughout Dorset and funded to the tune of some £300,000 by the Department, is profoundly unsettling the communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and I serve. One proposed site out to consultation at the moment is Lansdowne, right at the heart of Bournemouth, known locally as the gateway to Bournemouth and visible from the Wessex way.
Mr Syms: As I said in my contribution, the real problem is that Bournemouth and Poole local authorities became unitary without the boundaries being looked at. Both areas are very compact, and finding suitable sites is difficult unless we do so on a Dorset-wide basis.
Conor Burns: My hon. Friend makes a valid and compelling point which I wholly agree with and endorse.
My final point is that those communities, which include some elderly, vulnerable and frail people, are worried that our councils have gone out to consultation on specific sites. There is an excellent campaign being
12 Mar 2012 : Column 113
run on the Lansdowne site by a lady called Alex De Freitas, who has mobilised local traders and residents to put across their concerns.
We really want to hear tonight a compelling answer of some urgency from the Minister as to when our local authorities will be able to move away from that consultation and take up the very sensible powers with which they were presented in both governing parties’ pre-election offerings to the British people: the opportunity to come together and to make provision across multiple-authority areas, thereby giving the police the powers to move on the illegal encampments that do so much damage to the communities that my hon. Friend and I serve.
I, like my constituents, look forward with eager anticipation to the words of reassurance that will doubtless now flow from the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
8.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): First, let me say what an unexpected pleasure it is to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter that is of genuine significance and importance to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who spoke with eloquence about the situation that they face in Dorset and in their unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole on having secured the debate. I am delighted to respond to at least some of the points that he raised, although he will understand that I may not be able to respond to them all, including those that refer to specific sites and specific planning applications and situations, because ultimately they might finish up on the desk of the Secretary of State, and in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to offer a view from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Syms: May I say how very pleased I am to have my hon. Friend the Minister here replying to the debate? Sometimes greatness is thrust on people at the last minute. I look forward to his response, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I will find it perfectly understandable if he cannot respond to all the points raised.
Andrew Stunell: This debate is being conducted in a generosity of spirit that we could perhaps export to other parts of our proceedings at other times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that he was disappointed that a previous Government had withdrawn funding for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites and expressed the view that that had made the situation more difficult. I remind him that this Government have recently announced a grant programme that will enable some 700 Gypsy and Traveller sites to be refurbished and built across England. There is still some money left in the fund, and we are open to receiving bids for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites to take advantage of that funding. I understand his point about the added difficulty created by the various planning constraints that arise if it is also thought that significant amounts of money have to be spent, but the Government have responded to that. I appreciate his request for the Government to provide additional encouragement for the three authorities to work together, particularly in the potential co-ordination of police action. I will come to those points in a few minutes.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 114
I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to encouraging sustainable development, and it is extremely important that local authorities plan for the future of their communities, within which there will be Gypsies and Travellers. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have taken steps to abolish the regional spatial strategies, and we have published the draft national planning policy framework on which a consultation has concluded and on which a further announcement can be expected shortly. That clearly states that local authorities have a duty to provide a housing supply for residents living in their area, including those within the Gypsy and Traveller community. I welcome the fact that both my hon. Friends said that they recognised the commitment to provide sites.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): I apologise for being a bit delayed in joining the debate, which I was expecting to take place at 10 o’clock. It is always a delight to start these debates earlier, particularly today, as it gives us another hour and 15 minutes to debate this subject. [ Interruption. ] Not in an intervention, I am reminded.
The Minister talked about councils’ obligations to the community. Does he agree that councils also have an obligation to defend and support the green belt, of which they are the custodians for future generations? Three permanent sites inside the green belt have been earmarked for north Bournemouth. This is not against Travellers per se, but against any form of development on the green belt, which is believed to be sacrosanct. Will the Minister endorse the line that councils must be given the duty, responsibility and power to make sure that green belts are protected?
Andrew Stunell: I welcome my hon. Friend as another late arrival at the ball tonight. He makes a valid point relating to the consultation that we have carried out on the planning circulars on Gypsies and Travellers. Indeed, he puts his finger on one of the central concerns that led to the initiation of the consultation. I will come on to the next stages of that process in a little while.
There is an obligation on housing authorities to provide for all their residents, including Gypsies and Travellers. They must therefore make an assessment of what that need is and ensure that their local plan includes appropriate sites. The statutory guidance that we inherited implied that different planning rules should apply when sites were being allocated for Gypsies and Travellers. It is that incongruity between the planning constraints on the development of housing for the settled community and for the Gypsy and Traveller community that has often created difficulties and that the consultation is designed to address.
In providing the funding for new sites, responding to the consultation and developing a new planning framework, we must ensure that we do not simply drive the problem to another place, but that there is adequate provision for Gypsies and Travellers where it is needed. Central to the case of my hon. Friends the Members for Poole and for Bournemouth West is that they want there to be co-operation between the three planning authorities of Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset to ensure that that provision is delivered in the right place in an appropriate and timely fashion. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, the Localism Act 2011 places a duty
12 Mar 2012 : Column 115
to co-operate in planning matters on local authorities. I am sure that he will want to draw that to the attention of the local authorities and ensure that it is delivered.
Our aim is for the new draft policy to be short, light touch and fair; to put the provision of sites back into the hands of local councils, in consultation with communities; and to protect green-belt land. We are considering the response to the consultation and intend to publish our new policy as soon as possible. Although this goes a little beyond my brief, the House will understand that that is likely to be linked to the publication of the national planning policy framework. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has put it on record that we intend to publish the framework before the end of this month. I hope that that is some reassurance that we are very close to producing the final version of the policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole seeks.
It is important to put it on record that, like the rest of the population, the majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens. They should have the same chance to have a safe place to live and bring up their children as anybody else. What is not acceptable is for anybody to abuse the planning system, for instance by trespassing and setting up encampments or other unauthorised developments. Another purpose of the planning circular, on which we have consulted and which will be published, is to ensure that some of the rule-bending that has taken place will be ruled out in future. The Government are developing a package of changes, including the use of incentives, through the planning system to provide a better balance between site provision and enforcement.
To ensure fair treatment of settled communities and the majority of Travellers, we are putting in place a range of measures including the abolition of the architecture of regional planning through the Localism Act 2011—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I appreciate my hon. Friends’ support for that measure. We are putting in place stronger enforcement powers for local authorities to tackle unauthorised development and setting out measures to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning permission. My hon. Friends might not be aware that we are setting aside £50,000 to support a training programme run by Local Government Improvement and Development, which is aimed at raising awareness among councillors of their leadership role in relation to Traveller site provision and planning applications.
Thomas Docherty: How many councillors will that £50,000 provide training for?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath): Lots.
Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend helpfully says “Lots.” I would be quite happy to provide further information, but it will provide councillors with day-long seminars at local authority level.
I have already mentioned that we have included in the Localism Act a duty on local councils to co-operate. That will require them to engage constructively in the planning process. We have included Traveller sites in the new homes bonus, to reward councils that deliver additional
12 Mar 2012 : Column 116
sites. That will mean that councils get financial benefits for building authorised Traveller sites where they are needed.
I have mentioned that we have allocated £60 million of Traveller pitch funding to help councils and other registered providers to build new sites. So far I have signed off bids totalling £47 million, which were announced in January and will lead to the setting up of more than 750 new and refurbished pitches for Travellers. Hon. Members may be interested to know that Dorset county council was a successful bidder for £1.75 million of support.
It is important to rise above the simple planning context, which is what we have mostly concentrated on, and recognise that the Gypsy and Traveller community suffers a very high level of discrimination and deprivation. It has some of the poorest social outcomes in education, health, access to financial services and of course housing.
Conor Burns: May I gently put it to the Minister that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) nor I has in any way sought to denigrate members of the Gypsy and Traveller community or be alarmist about them? We are interested in pushing the Government towards a position in which our local authorities can respond to legitimate need but at the same time give the police the power that they need to move on illegal encampments, which are often positioned in sensitive areas and have an impact on tourism and other matters in our communities.
Andrew Stunell: I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I hope to get to that in a sentence or two.
I can report to the House that a cross-Government ministerial-level working group has been preparing proposals on how we can address the discrimination and poor social outcomes that Travellers experience. We have applied the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to authorised local authority sites, to give residents of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites better protection against eviction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has once again brought to the House’s attention the question of unauthorised developments and what happens next. As a matter of definition, an unauthorised development is land owned by Travellers but developed without planning permission. The Government are getting tough on unauthorised development. We will not tolerate abuse of the planning system by anyone. Local authorities have a range of powers to deal with unauthorised developments, but the fact of the matter is that planning enforcement remains a problem. The powers include temporary stop notices, which do not normally allow the removal of a caravan that is a person’s main residence. In addition to the measures set out in the Localism Act 2011, the Government are considering strengthening temporary stop notice powers. The measures in the Act include increasing penalties for non-compliance with a breach of condition notice, from a maximum fine of £1,000 to one of £2,500, and limiting the opportunities for retrospective planning in relation to any form of unauthorised development.
Unauthorised encampments—Travellers trespassing on land not owned by Travellers—can be tackled not just through the planning system, but through the criminal justice system and civil courts. The police and local authorities have a range of powers to deal with such
12 Mar 2012 : Column 117
encampments. The full range of powers can be used when an alternative site is available in the local authority area. My hon. Friends have pointed out that because of the tight constraints and small geographical areas of both Poole and Bournemouth, it is difficult to establish the availability of such sites in the local authority areas. Their plea is for the Government to consider widening the scope of that measure, possibly using the duty to co-operate. I have taken note of what they said on that point and undertake to respond to them more fully.
Mr Ellwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. With an hour and five minutes left, he has been extremely generous in allowing hon. Members to elaborate on aspects of this important debate. Will he clarify an important issue that affects both Poole and Bournemouth? The regional spatial strategy has been removed and regional development agencies are disappearing, with the 2011 Act replacing them. I understand that Bournemouth borough council now offers in the submission of its core strategy a different paragraph on where Gypsy and Traveller sites can be—it can make the case that Bournemouth is not appropriate and that those people should be placed elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm that? If he cannot do so now—I understand that he stepped in for another Minister—I would be grateful if his Department could write to me.
Andrew Stunell: I should make it clear to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not feel any deep obligation to keep going for another hour and a quarter.
I would not want my hon. Friend to be too premature. The final version of the national planning policy framework has not yet been published. As I said earlier in my remarks, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, has told the House that the intention is that the national planning policy framework should be published before the end of this month. At that
12 Mar 2012 : Column 118
point, there will also be a statement on how it comes into force. Until that moment, it would not be appropriate for a planning authority to proceed—indeed, the authority could not proceed, because our proposals of last year have not yet been confirmed. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and I might have a reasonable expectation that when the framework is in force, the words he has used would be the appropriate ones to apply.
Mr Syms: I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. He deserves time off for good behaviour. I am sure that any points that he has not covered can be dealt with later by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
Mr Heath: He will visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. [Laughter.]
Andrew Stunell: Yes, it has been suggested that I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will be only too delighted to visit the constituency of each Member who has spoken. If it is thought appropriate, I will give that commitment on his behalf.
We have discussed matters of real significance and importance to the constituents of the Members who have spoken. I do not seek to trivialise that at all. They have generously said that if there are points that I have failed to cover appropriately, they will give my hon. Friend the Minister another chance. On that basis, I hope that the House will be satisfied with my responses and that in due course the matter can be drawn to a full conclusion.