Sutton Borough Liberal Democrats

The House will of course have opportunities in the new Session to debate those issues.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That, in respect of Questions to the Secretary of State for Wales for oral answer on Wednesday 15 May in the next Session of Parliament, paragraph (5)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments) shall apply with the substitution of three days for four days.

Regular participants in oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that the deadline for submitting questions and for their printing and circulation is normally Tuesday for questions on Wednesday of the following week. This recognises Standing Order No. 22 (5)(a), which specifies at least four days, excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday, between circulation of questions and their subsequent answering where they relate to the territorial Departments and the Attorney-General. The motion before the House is necessary, given the imminent Prorogation, and replaces the normal Standing Order requirement of four days with three days, thereby providing for questions to be circulated on the first day that Parliament returns, Wednesday 8 May, for answering the following Wednesday, 15 May. I commend the motion to the House.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that she has pursued this matter vigorously in recent months. Clearly, the McKay commission has produced a serious report. It has a menu of options contained within it, and the Government will want to consider the recommendations very carefully before coming to any firm conclusions.

The McKay commission reported on 25 March on how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only part of the UK. This is a very important issue, which is why the Government asked this expert commission to look at it. The report makes a helpful contribution, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I must point out that that is not a ministerial responsibility. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that its representatives will be listening carefully to this exchange and that they will want to take suitable action.

I certainly agree that the House has excellent staff, and we should do everything we can to ensure that they continue to work effectively on our

behalf. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about a specific aspect of staffing, he might find it appropriate to raise the matter with the House of Commons Commission, from which I am sure he will get a suitably informed response.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continues to work closely with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission to ensure that Members are fully supported by excellent staff and have the necessary facilities to carry out their duties effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, responsibility for day-to-day pay and allowances, including pay for MPs' staff, is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which she related ingeniously to the issue of statutory instruments. I have heard her concerns and will ensure she gets a written response to her question.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know this is a matter that she has been pursuing vigorously. The issue with her proposal for statutory instruments is that the two Houses could end up amending a statutory instrument in different ways. There would then need to be a reconciliation process, very similar to a Bill handling process, so there are concerns about what she suggests. If she has not already done so, she may want to raise the matter with the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

The Government have no current plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments.

I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House. It has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and it is good that the House now has the opportunity to consider it.

The motion arises out of the work of the Finance and Services Committee. The reasoning behind it and the process undertaken in coming to this solution have been expertly outlined by its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I am grateful to him and the rest of the Committee, which conducts important work on behalf of the House, for their constructive approach in seeking the agreement of the House of Commons Commission and working collaboratively with the Procedure Committee in reaching this solution.

As right hon. and hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have signified their support for the motion by adding their names to it. The proposed Standing Order addresses the issue that at any time the House can pass a motion that adds costs to the administration budget. As the Finance and Services Committee recognised in its report, that is not a creditable way for the finances of a major public body to be run. The proposed Standing Order will not prevent the House either from debating the motions it wants to debate or from making the decisions it wants to make, but it will ensure that decisions are made on the basis of access to basic information about the financial consequences of those decisions. The House has rightly set itself the target of reducing the administration estimate, so it is a matter of good governance that the attached Standing Order be approved to support the House in that aim.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) asked me a couple of questions. First, I can assure him that at an appropriate point the full costs of the Banking Commission will be confirmed, but I am not in a position to do that now. Secondly, he has rightly pointed out that there are other matters relating to the work of the Procedure Committee that could usefully be discussed-under Remaining Orders, for instance-and to which he has put his name. He will

be pleased to hear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has discussed with the Procedure Committee's Chair the priority placed on the different motions. I hope that the House will get the chance to resolve these issues-I will not say "soon"-without undue delay. I am happy to support the motion on the Order Paper.

Question put and agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to share my thoughts with the House, but they will be pleasingly brief.

I welcome my Opposition counterpart back to the Dispatch Box after his thoughtful contribution to the tributes to Baroness Thatcher. I wish to respond to one of his points. I do not share the pessimism he displayed on the timetable or timing. I am confident that, if the Commission reports promptly, there will be time for its recommendations to be taken fully into account in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

With those brief points, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That the Order of 16 July 2012 relating to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards shall have effect in the next Session until the day on which the Commission makes its report on standards and culture of the UK banking sector.

That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.

This motion is to allow the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to continue its work in the new Session of Parliament, and to give it time to publish its final report on standards and culture in the banking sector. The Commission was established in July last year following the LIBOR rate-setting revelations, and it had a dual remit. First, it was to report on the lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency, conflicts of interest and their implications for regulation and Government policy. Secondly, it was given the role of looking more broadly at standards and culture in the UK banking sector, taking into account regulatory and competitions investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process.

The Commission reported on the first part of its remit on 21 December last year in its report on banking standards. It has subsequently published three further reports on structural reform of the banking sector, proprietary trading, and the failure of HBOS. Its final report is now awaited, and I understand that it is hoping to report early in the new Session. That would allow its conclusions to be taken into account in the House's scrutiny of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which has completed its Committee stage in the House and is awaiting Report.

The motion is required because under the rules of both Houses of Parliament, Joint Committees cease to exist at the end of the Session in which they were established-unless specific provision is made for reporting by a specified date-or when they have reported on the matter entrusted to them. The motion does not specify a particular date by which the Committee must report, in order to provide the Commission with flexibility to complete its work on its own terms.

The motion makes clear that the Commission will cease to exist when it produces its main report. Of course it is important to ensure that change in the banking sector is carried through, both through the Government's commitment to introduce any necessary amendments to legislation arising out of the Commission's work, and through appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of progress in the banking sector and its regulation after the Commission ceases. The Government welcome the valuable work the Commission has already done in examining the banking sector, and look forward to the publication of its final report in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.

Given the time I have left, I shall have to set out some rules at the beginning of my speech. One will be that I will not take any interventions and the other will be that I will have to do my delivery in the style of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) if I am to refer to all the contributions made this evening.

I congratulate those Members who are still in the Chamber on their dedication and commitment to today's penultimate debate and I hope that they will not be punished by not being able to get home again if the weather is inclement. I also understand that some Members, for obvious reasons, have had to depart early and I shall still try to refer to their speeches. I am particularly grateful for the attendance of the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on their birthdays.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) rightly laid into the doom-mongers with some relish. Times are tough, but he set out some of the success stories in his constituency, particularly on apprenticeships, where there has been dramatic growth. I am pleased to say that in the past couple of weeks I have hired my own first apprentice in my office and he is already making a very positive contribution.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) referred to the case of a constituent, Mrs Brenda Pressdee, and I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduous research on that case. I am sure that the relevant Ministers will have heard her request for a meeting on the matter and that they will want to respond positively. She also referred to a national issue, marine conservation zones. She expressed concerns about the cost of a further consultation and I am sure that the Government will want to manage those costs effectively.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) underlined one of the strengths of such debates and this Parliament, which is our ability to raise issues of an international nature. He wanted to generate publicity about the trial of former President Nasheed and I can confirm for his benefit-although I am sure that he is aware of it-that our Government have been consistent in saying that the international community will not find it tenable if the former president is excluded from the elections in the Maldives.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned the Srebrenica genocide, which all Members will remember. It was the biggest war crime in Europe since the second world war. The Government recognise that genocide through events such as Holocaust memorial day and we are working with the Srebrenica genocide memorial and educational project to see other ways in which we can mark that anniversary.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) referred to the controversy surrounding an incinerator or energy recovery facility. I can confirm that I am aware of the controversies surrounding such plants, because there is a proposal for one in Beddington in my constituency. He stressed the importance of ensuring that it provides decent value for money, which is the last issue he wants to pursue, because all the planning processes have been completed.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) talked about his desire to see work proceed on rebuilding Marlborough and Vaughan primary schools. He will be pleased to hear that there is no delay. He asked me to ensure that Ministers chase up the Education Funding Agency, and I am happy to pass that on so that he gets a prompt response. He also referred to problems relating to London Welsh, and I am sure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have listened carefully to what he said. He highlighted some inconsistencies in the penalties issued by the Rugby Football Union, but I do not think that is something I can pursue as Deputy Leader of the House. I am sure that is something he will want to do, and he has put that on the record.

We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who stated that Essex is the county of entrepreneurs-I am sure that is also true of many other counties-and made a couple of specific points about Her Majesty's Revenue and Customers and a constituent, Mr Wright. I am sure that HMRC has public relations people who follow these debates closely and that they will want to pick up on that point and, I hope, respond positively to her concerns. She also referred to some unhappiness about the way in which the Valuation Office Agency works and the need for more flexibility on business rates, particularly how high levels of business rates affect strong and emerging businesses in her constituency.

The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) talked about the If campaign, which I am sure many Members on both sides of the House will want to support. That gives me an opportunity to underline the fact that the Government are delivering on the commitment to devoting 0.7% of gross national income on aid, which I think we should all be proud of. It was started by the previous Government and finished by this one. He also expressed concern about the difference in the way children from families with parents who are in work and those from families with parents who are not in work are dealt with in respect of free school meals. I am sure that is something the Department for Education, which has responsibility for free school meals, might want to respond to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised a variety of issues-another Member referred to it as a "kaleidoscope of issues"-and it would be difficult to respond to them all. He referred to the plight of Christians, particularly in countries such as Pakistan; the importance of recognising the need to support Tourette's sufferers, through the Department for Education, and in schools and in health care; and the importance of fortifying foods with folic acid, and the charity in his constituency, Shine, which works on that issue. I have noted his concerns about equal marriage, but I am pleased that the Government are pursuing it. He talked about the important role the voluntary sector is playing in relation to the Peterborough cathedral appeal. He also mentioned the Sue Ryder hospice and the generosity of his city. I am sure that his city and its people are very generous and that we all want to recognise that.

We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) on the Cockenzie power station. She said that today might feel like groundhog dog. She will no doubt know that the groundhog is being sued at the moment. In fact, they are seeking the

death penalty for the groundhog in America because he has failed to predict the beginning of spring accurately. She focused on the need for investment. Clearly, the decision on whether to invest in a new combined cycle gas turbine at Cockenzie is very much a commercial matter for ScottishPower, but I am sure that the Government would welcome that investment and the jobs and energy that would be created if and when the development goes ahead.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said that the UK has thrived on immigration but not on foreign criminals, and I certainly agree with that sentiment. He made a concrete suggestion-I am sure that the Ministry of Justice will want to respond to it-about an amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007 that he thinks could address the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals who have served a prison sentence. I am sure that he will secure a response as a result of his speech.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose birthday I mentioned earlier, talked about sport and fitness for women and girls. She is right to raise that issue, and I commend her for doing so. We need more women and girls in sport, and the well-being that can be derived from that is considerable. She asked for responses to some specific questions, and I will follow those up. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about her local bypass and its importance in bringing industrial regeneration, particularly around Radnor Park business park in Congleton, and the possibility of investment in the aerospace industry.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I am sorry to hear about Dunfermline Athletic football club. I am sure that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Her Majesty's Treasury will want to look on that situation favourably and assist as much as they can. He also talked about Royal Navy personnel in Scotland. I can confirm that there will be a rise in the number of Navy personnel in Fife supporting the Queen Elizabeth-class build, peaking at about 750 personnel. I hope that he welcomes that.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) raised a very large number of issues, which are all noted. I am sure that the 20 Departments he mentioned will want to respond promptly.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed Ulster Scots culture. I am pleased that he did, because one always learns something in these debates, and that was something new. I think he claimed that no fewer than 12 US Presidents had Ulster Scots heritage, and I am sure that that is entirely accurate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about interest rate swaps, which I am sure that many Members are concerned about. He made a specific request about tailored business loans that I will follow up. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised the issue of knife crime, which the Government are clearly committed to addressing. He made a specific proposal on a two-strikes policy that the MOJ may want to follow up.

The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) was again a bit like groundhog day as regards Essex county council. He raised the expenses scandal, which he likes to mention in this place and I know he will pursue again and again.

We then heard about Mid Staffs, and I am pleased that we had had a detailed statement on that earlier. I have much sympathy with the concerns expressed about the future of the specialist accident and emergency services. That issue affects my local hospital, St Helier hospital, which is at risk in the same way.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about electronic cigarettes. He will be pleased to know that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has conducted research into this that will feed into the Government's position on the European Commission's proposals, to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) pursued, as he does-I am sure that he will do so relentlessly-the issue of secret courts in relation to family justice.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the apprentice scheme in his constituency. I commend him for that and hope that the young people he is working with will go on to make very successful business people in future. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to concerns about his local A and E department.

I am afraid that I am running out of time and will not be able to complete my speech, but I commend the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who managed to talk seriously about hen welfare, but managed to make many references to eggs.

I conclude by wishing a happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House, including the Serjeant at Arms and his officers, Hansard, and José and Fedel in the gift shop. It is not eggs that I will be sharing this evening with staff in the Office of the Leader of the House, but liquid refreshment-

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 15(5)(a) and Order this day).

I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that I am responding to the debate as the Minister with responsibility for Government policy relating to parliamentary privilege. I know that he knows that I have no responsibility for the police and will not attempt to answer for the conduct of the Sussex police in investigating an alleged offence of malicious communication under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. These are indeed operational matters, but of course he will have noted that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was present during the debate and will have taken away with him the telling remarks that my hon. Friend made.

The House will have heard my hon. Friend's description of events surrounding the investigation of the allegation of malicious conduct and the subsequent advice by the Crown Prosecution Service that no further action be taken. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about the merits of his constituent's claims. I have to say that I have sympathy, as I am sure all hon. Members here tonight will, with my hon. Friend's remarks about the amount of time and resources devoted to that investigation, given the nature of the allegations.

My hon. Friend spoke about his freedom of speech as a Member of Parliament. I therefore want to address my remarks to the protection of freedom of speech afforded to Members of Parliament by parliamentary privilege. In doing so, I might help to inform a judgment as to whether this particular case has any implications for the application of parliamentary privilege, or whether it is, as he said in his closing remarks, more an issue of police practices and policy.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I set out briefly how the protection of our freedom of speech afforded by parliamentary privilege extends to Members' correspondence with constituents. Freedom of speech for Members of Parliament is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, but it provides absolute protection only to proceedings in Parliament. The meaning of "proceedings" in that context is to an extent open to interpretation and I am not aware that the issue raised by my hon. Friend of privilege for a Member's correspondence with a constituent has ever been tested in the courts. The legal position is clear: the House has never sought to assert that privilege should apply to communications between Members and their constituents or other members of the public.

There have not been many cases to test the boundaries of privilege in that regard but the basic principles are clearly understood. It has been established that letters from constituents to Members are not proceedings in Parliament and it therefore follows that Members' replies to constituents are not proceedings either. Indeed, the courts have separately determined that Members' letters to Ministers are similarly not considered to be proceedings in Parliament. However, the courts have regarded some types of communication to a Member of Parliament by a constituent as enjoying qualified privilege in certain circumstances. For example, a Member who passes on a constituent's concerns in good faith to the proper authority, such as a Minister, will not be protected by absolute privilege but is likely to be protected by qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege might also apply to communications with a link to parliamentary proceedings, such as a speech or parliamentary question, or those that relate to a matter of public concern. That will depend on the circumstances, but in their ordinary dealings with constituents, Members of Parliament, like everyone else, should expect to be subject to the laws of the land, including that on malicious communication. As all Members would agree, however, Members and constituents should expect the law to deal with matters proportionately.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is making the case for change and for extending parliamentary privilege to all forms of communication between a Member and a constituent. The issue has been considered before, several times. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which considered the matter between 1998 and 1999, recommended that there should be no extension of parliamentary privilege to correspondence between MPs and Ministers. Conversely, the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill in 2011 argued that the

"the democratic process is unacceptably hindered by a lack of certainty and awareness among constituents about their right to engage in open and frank discussions with their Westminster representative"

and recommended that

"all forms of communication between constituents and their MP (acting in his or her official capacity as an MP)"

should be protected by qualified privilege.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Green Paper on parliamentary privilege that the Government published last April, which arose in part from concerns that parliamentary privilege might be able to be used by MPs to avoid prosecution for offences relating to expenses, but also from a feeling that there might be scope usefully to clarify the law in certain areas, including on the definition of parliamentary proceedings and Select Committee powers. On the issue of Members' correspondence with constituents, the Green Paper set out the Government's view that, on balance, it is preferable to let the courts determine the boundaries of privilege on a case-by-case basis than to introduce a statutory qualified privilege for MPs' correspondence. To extend an absolute privilege to correspondence between MPs and constituents could encourage malicious complaints to be made to MPs that are damaging to third parties. I am not aware that such an extension has been seriously advocated.

A Joint Committee is considering the issues raised in the Green Paper and we look forward to considering its conclusions on this and other issues, which are expected to be published in the next few weeks. I am sure that the Committee will consider tonight's debate and all the

points raised by my hon. Friend carefully to see whether they are pertinent. If Parliament collectively believes that some injustice arises from the way the courts apply the law, it is open to Parliament to change the law.

I do not see that the issue raised by my hon. Friend advances the case for any legislative action on parliamentary privilege, but we will consider the issue in the round when we receive the Joint Committee's report. In the

meantime, I hope that he ensures that he works hard on having a constructive dialogue with his local police force. I was going to say, "continues to have a constructive dialogue," but I think perhaps to date that dialogue has not been there in the way that he would have liked.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.

On 21 March.

It is clear that the Government have put a heavy emphasis on the scrutiny of Bills, for example through pre-legislative scrutiny and the other mechanisms we are using with pilots to ensure that legislation in this House gets the appropriate consideration.

Whether to change the Standing Orders would, of course, be a matter for the House, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend

the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his predecessor have both been successful in securing private Members' Bills while in opposition. Indeed, in the previous Session four private Members' Bills made it to the statute book, and they were not hand-out Bills, and in this Session three private Members' Bills have been secured in legislation, and we expect a further three to do so.

The time available for private Members' Bills is set out in the Standing Orders at 13 Fridays in each Session.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has regularly reminded Ministers, including members of the Cabinet, that it is important that they come to the House to make ministerial statements here first.