Commons Sitting of 13 February 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (DISSOLUTION)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House on 8 January.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 27 February.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 2000–01
Ordered,
That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2000–01, showing:—

(1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 2001; and

(2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Police Reform
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on police reform in Northern Ireland. [33133]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Our aim is to develop a modern police service that is effective and widely accepted throughout the community that it serves. Good progress has already been
    190
    made in restructuring the police and in establishing a Policing Board with representatives from across the community.
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome that answer, as I do the long overdue police reform in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend agree that the families affected by the Omagh atrocity are not helped by the fact that people of considerable influence, including some politicians, refuse to assist the police in their inquiries into the Omagh events? Does she also agree that, despite the important work carried out by the Policing Board, the undignified public squabble between the police ombudsman and other authorities only adds a sense of frustration to that of loss and anger, which is already felt by the bereaved families?
    Jane Kennedy: Everyone wants the perpetrators to be brought to justice. To convict those responsible for that appalling crime, the police need evidence. Speculation and intelligence are not enough. This remains a live investigation, and I hope that the recent publicity about the tragic events in Omagh on 15 August 1998 will encourage those with information to come forward.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Minister is keen to have a good police service in Northern Ireland, does she agree that it needs to be properly funded? There is a deficit of more than £40 million for this year, and it will probably be £80 million next year. Without resources, how can we have good policing in Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service to all in the community. The police grant for this year amounts to £656 million, which represents a high level of commitment by the Government. In August, the Secretary of State allocated an additional £10 million to the police grant to relieve pressures arising from the costs of policing disturbances earlier in the year. I am pleased to announce today that a further £16 million has been made available to the PSNI to meet all the remaining pressures identified by the Chief Constable in this financial year.
    Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that the most fundamental and necessary principle of law and order in any society is agreement on the system of government—in other words, agreement on the system of order? When that is absent, no matter where it is, the police service will always be seen to be on one side or the other. Unfortunately, that was the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Now, that fundamental principle has not only been put in place, with agreement on our system of government, but overwhelmingly endorsed by the people. That being so, does the Minister agree that it is the duty of members of all democratic political parties who regard themselves as democrats fully to support the policing service and to take their place in all the bodies relating to it?
    Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend says.
    Lady Hermon: Will the Minister please address a serious issue? The Patten report recommends

    191
    that, over 10 years, the strength of the police service should be 7,500. That represents a significant fall in a short time. What is being done to redress the balance as regards that dangerously low level of policing?
    Jane Kennedy: The Police Service of Northern Ireland is recruiting well, and levels of recruitment from both sides of the community are at a higher level than even Patten envisaged in his report. I am encouraged by the response that the communities have given to the reforms in the police service in Northern Ireland, and I have every confidence that we will have all the officers that we need to police Northern Ireland in the future.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I have here a letter from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It states:
    "Dear Colleague,
    Northern Ireland Questions: Wednesday 13th February 2002.
    Thank you for your interest in Northern Ireland, and your help in tabling questions. I attach a suggested question…If you would like an alternative, or would like the question tabled on your behalf, please contact either myself, or Shona McIsaac, PPS to Jane Kennedy MP, Minister of State for Security and Policing…If your question is listed and is likely to be called, there will be assistance available with supplementaries".
    Does the Minister agree that it is a pretty good waste of Parliament's time for her and her colleagues to answer questions cooked up in her office?
    Further to the question of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), will the Minister accept that she told us on Monday that the number of victims of paramilitary violence was now 50 per cent. higher than when Patten wrote his report, and that the staffing level of the police service is now 300 below the level envisaged by Patten? Does she agree that this would be the wrong time to start disbanding the full-time police reserve?
    Jane Kennedy: In one short question I have been asked about police staffing, police resources and the very difficult matter of Omagh. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest which of those issues we should not be questioned on?

    Good Friday Agreement
    Roger Casale: What aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented. [33134]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Our task is to ensure that the implementation process continues on all fronts.
    Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that the new institutions are operational, will he continue to do everything that he can to encourage all parties, including the Unionists, to work together in those institutions? Will he also continue to support the economic development of Northern Ireland, which is one
    192
    of the ways of bringing people—especially young people—together and ensuring that all the people of Northern Ireland have a better future?
    Mr. Browne: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are faithfully implementing the agreement. As he rightly points out, implementation is not a matter only for the Government; it is a joint enterprise. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for the significant work that they are doing in this regard. The Government have consistently encouraged and persuaded others to fulfil their obligations, and we are still doing so. We continue to face challenges, but we also continue to make steady progress on all aspects of the agreement.
    Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware of the existence of the recently formed Ulster Political Research Group, whose aim is to address the political alienation from the Good Friday agreement process felt by loyalist communities in Northern Ireland, particularly in north Belfast? Would he be willing to accept representations from that group, and from one of its leading contributors, Mr. Frankie Gallagher?
    Mr. Browne: The Government recognise the potential contribution that the Ulster Political Research Group could make to progress in this regard. That is why officials from the Northern Ireland Office met a delegation from the group on 28 January. There was a constructive exchange of views, and it was agreed that further meetings could take place when appropriate.
    Mr. David Trimble: While welcoming what the Minister has just said about engaging with loyalism, may I ask the Government to consider their own position? When are they going to demonstrate that they fully respect the letter and the spirit of the agreement's constitutional provisions, particularly those that recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place as part of the United Kingdom? When are the Government going to respect that? They completely failed to do so in certain aspects of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Are they going to repeat that mistake with regard to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, or will they allow the proper expression of British national symbols in the courts of Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom? That is the logic and the spirit of the agreement, but the Government have not yet recognised that.
    Mr. Browne: I have already assured the House that the Government are implementing the agreement faithfully, including aspects mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. As for his specific point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Government's position clear on Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, and in Committee yesterday I had an opportunity to repeat what he had said. We are prepared to consider all aspects of that Bill, and the Secretary of State is considering the points made to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Minister not think that far too much attention is already being paid to symbolism, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain

    193
    more generally? Would it not be appropriate to think about reducing the importance that we attach to symbols, and attaching more importance to reality?
    Mr. Browne: That is of course an important aspect of the agreement, in that the agreement requires the symbols and traditions of both sides of the community to be acknowledged and respected. The Government will continue to implement that provision.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The whole House will have noticed that the Minister of State spectacularly failed to answer an important question about the Government's commitment to running down the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the whole population of Northern Ireland will draw very pessimistic conclusions from that evasion.
    I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues sincerely share my disappointment that there has been no further act of decommissioning since the Sinn Fein-IRA single act of decommissioning last October. Is the Under-Secretary of State surprised?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows the position relating to the full-time reserve: the Chief Constable will review the situation in April, and the Government will act on his recommendations.
    We want more decommissioning, as, I think, do all Members. We maintain, and must maintain, local, national and international pressure on all terrorist groups in order to make further progress. This is not just a republican issue, however. We must not lose sight of the need to encourage movement from loyalists: indeed, to some extent that must be our priority.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not time the Government learned that giving rewards and concessions to people who do not fulfil their obligations is not a very clever way of inducing them to do so? Will the Minister assure us that, short of the completion of decommissioning and the abandonment of the armed struggle by terrorists and former terrorists, there can be no question of an amnesty for terrorists on the run? If the Government proceeded with such an amnesty in the present circumstances, they would have no defence whatever against the charge of a complete sell-out—a sell-out of all the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland, in both communities, and indeed of all principles of judicial propriety and good sense.
    Mr. Browne: The Weston Park proposals set the issue in its proper context. It arises from the Belfast agreement, and is a logical extension of it. As we have said repeatedly, the Government are still considering how this might be achieved, and when our considerations have been concluded we will publish our proposals for debate here.

    Military Presence
    Laura Moffatt: What progress is being made towards reducing the military presence in Northern Ireland. [33135]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): As a result of the general lowering of the threat from terrorists, the Chief Constable was able to announce on 22 January a number of further normalisation measures.
    Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the attack on the Magilligan training camp, and extend his sympathy to the civilian victim's family? Will he assure the House and everyone else that that terrible act will not impede the process of normalisation in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: I have no hesitation in condemning the recent attack on the Magilligan training centre. I am sure that I speak for all Members in extending sympathy to the victim and the victim's family.
    Clearly, there are those who still wish to inject the poison of the past into Northern Ireland society in an attempt to stop the progress towards the normal, stable, decent, democratic Northern Ireland that the people there deserve. They will not be allowed to achieve that objective; but it is worth making absolutely plain that the abnormal level of troops in Northern Ireland is not a result of any aspiration or ambition on the part of the Government or the House, but a direct result of the abnormal threat to the lives and property of Northern Ireland citizens, and to the police. Of the people who demand the reduction in troop levels the loudest are those who, by their vicious actions, ensure that those levels remain above the normal level for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to reduce the regular Army to garrison levels, which all reasonable people want in Northern Ireland, is to maintain a civil police force of such numbers, size and operational ability that it can be the prime force in defending law and order? In two areas of Northern Ireland, north Belfast and Coleraine, the regular Army has been brought in recently to back up the RUC, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister come to a meeting that I have called for next Wednesday night at Ballyclare town hall to hear the complaints and concerns of the full-time RUC Reserve? Forty per cent. of the operational police on the ground have an "R" on their shoulder. If they are taken out in March or April, we will have no law and order in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Reid: Of course, the Minister responsible for security and I meet constantly with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including members of the full-time reserve. I would not for a moment underestimate the difficulties in facing up to the challenges that the police service faces.
    Decisions on the full-time reserve will depend on an assessment by the Chief Constable, which will be made in April this year. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman against even implicitly I know that he does not mean to do this—laying the blame for the high level of troops in Northern Ireland on any inadequacy in the policing. The level of troops in Northern Ireland is a direct result of the threats to the lives and to the property of the police and the citizenry in Northern Ireland by dissident republicans

    195
    in particular, but also by rejectionist loyalists. They are the people who are refusing to mend their ways and creating an abnormal society in Northern Ireland. We are the people who wish to see normality return.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the primacy of policing and policing decisions is a hallmark and a core element of any normal and stable society? Does he further agree that until there is a reduction in the military presence the primacy of policing decisions will be incomplete? What plans does the Northern Ireland Office have of now to ensure the removal of installations in south Armagh that are manned exclusively by military personnel?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is our aspiration to achieve a normal level of troops in Northern Ireland. Indeed, partly because of the success of the police service, in co-operation with the Garda from the Republic of Ireland, the threat level has been assessed as lower and, in the past four months alone, from memory, we have reduced two establishments, and announced that another barracks is to close and a battalion and three towers are to be removed.
    I repeat that we have no ambition to keep a higher level of troops in Northern Ireland than is absolutely necessary, particularly when British troops, because of their professional expertise, are in demand across the world by the United Nations. However, the main obstacle to that is the fact that there remains a higher than normal threat to the lives of our citizens and to the police service. It is the first duty of any civilised Government to defend the lives of our citizens and to combat the threats against them.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Given that the Ministry of Defence's liability so far for its part in the Saville inquiry is £14.5 million, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that that will in no way compromise any part of the MOD's operational budget in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can. Our military expenditure in Northern Ireland in the past 30 years has been astronomical. As a result of the progress that we have made in the peace process, part of which addresses very difficult issues of truth about the past, the troop level in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for 31 years. We have reduced the number of soldiers there from 27,000 to 13,000, with commensurate back-up. The savings from that alone far exceed any costs of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Police Effectiveness
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What discussions he has had with authorities in (a) the United States and (b) other countries to identify means of improving police effectiveness in Northern Ireland. [33136]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I have ongoing contact with a range of authorities on policing matters. I returned this morning from a two-day visit to the United States, which gave me an opportunity to discuss policing and other matters with
    196
    Secretary Powell, Robert Mueller, who is director of the FBI, and assistant Attorney-General Larry Thompson, among others.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an indivisibility about terrorism, and that the assistance provided by the United States will therefore be particularly welcome to the people of Northern Ireland? In so far as there are resource implications of that assistance, will the needs of the Police Service of Northern Ireland be met adequately and in full?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. I have no hesitation in saying publicly that we are enormously grateful for the assistance that we have been given by the United States authorities and, most recently, President Bush's agreement to joint training between the FBI and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend points out, the Government are committed to providing the resources necessary to supplement assistance from outside. That is why we recently awarded an additional £10 million. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for security said today, we are happy to announce that an additional £16 million will go to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome the announcement today in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) of additional money for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Can I press the Secretary of State further to reassure my constituents in north Belfast and other people in Northern Ireland that the axe that currently hangs over several police stations, including two in my constituency that cover areas where there has been trouble in recent days—in the Whitewell area and between Tiger's Bay and Newington—will be removed? Will the Secretary of State ensure that those police stations will remain open and that security will not be reduced at a very difficult time?
    Dr. Reid: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the Government's commitment to resource the police service. I do not often have the opportunity to welcome such acknowledgements but I am grateful for it. On decisions about the future of police stations in general, the key role will be played by the Policing Board. Despite the cynicism and attempts by people to undermine the role of the Policing Board, it has risen magnificently to continual challenges, not least most recently on the subject of the Omagh inquiry. I am sure that it will act with just as much wisdom, circumspection and concern for effective policing on the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

    Devolved Administration (Discussions)
    Siobhain McDonagh: What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administration regarding the support given to victims of the troubles. [33137]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I met Ministers of the devolved Administration on 25 January. We discussed a range of issues that impact on our

    197
    respective strategies for responding to the needs of victims of the troubles. Such regular consultation is vital to ensure that the needs of victims are properly addressed.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I draw his attention to the very good work of the Northern Ireland centre for trauma and transformation. What assurances can he give about its future funding?
    Mr. Browne: I can assure my hon. Friend that the centre's work has been fully recognised by the Northern Ireland Office. Significant funding has been committed so that it can go ahead as the Northern Ireland centre for trauma. The centre is doing good work in Northern Ireland, and internationally.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome what has been done for victims, but does the Minister accept that we have fresh victims daily, who sometimes seem to be forgotten about? Will it be possible for the Minister to use his influence more to prevent the constant changes in our policing that keep people writing reports instead of working on the streets?
    Mr. Browne: I recognise the need for less bureaucracy in this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are about to take a fresh look at our strategy with regard to victims to ensure that it is capable of responding to the changing context that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of hon. Members on all sides of the House how deeply we express our sadness at the death of her royal highness Princess Margaret? She will be remembered by the whole nation with huge affection for her love of culture and art and her sense of fun, but most of all for the service that she gave our nation. Our thoughts and deep condolences are with the Queen, the Queen Mother, and all the royal family.
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also had a meeting with some 600 chief executives in the national health service. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today
    Dr. Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters such as MMR and BSE illustrate how important it is to understand the risk factor in science? Does he also agree that science and discovery centres such as At-Bristol play an important role in achieving that? Will
    198
    he therefore accept that such centres deserve to have central Government funding, as many museums and art galleries do?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the centre in Bristol on the work that it does, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we invest in science for the future. That is why the Government, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, are committed to making available some £1 billion over the next few years for investment in science. That will be an investment not only in the learning of our young people, but in the economic future of the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in offering our condolences to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother and the royal family on their sad loss. The Prime Minister is right to say that Princess Margaret was a strong servant of her country, through war and peace. She will be mourned and much missed throughout the country.
    When the Prime Minister signed the letter to his Romanian counterpart on behalf of LNM on 23 July 2001, was he or his chief of staff—[Interruption.] I repeat, was he or his chief of staff aware that the owner of that company, Mr. Mittal, had at any time—I repeat, at any time—donated money to his party?
    The Prime Minister: It is of course a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal is a donor to the Labour party and a supporter of the Labour party. Why is that a matter of public record? It is because this Government introduced the open rules for political funding. For years and years, no one had any idea of how the Conservative party or any political party was funded. We introduced rules of transparency.
    As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the letter that I signed mentioned not Mr. Mittal but his company, LNM, of which I had no knowledge. However, having said that, had I known that Mr. Mittal was a supporter of the Labour party, it would have made no difference whatever to the signing of the letter. That was entirely justified, as was the advice from the embassy.
    This is a complete load of nonsense from beginning to end. It is not Watergate, it is Garbagegate. It is the biggest load of garbage since the last load of garbage, which was Enron.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is very interesting that the Prime Minister now says that it is garbage to raise a concern that he, as the Prime Minister and on behalf of the whole country, should have written a letter in support of a company—by the way, it is a competitor to our main steel manufacturer—which turns out to have fewer than one tenth of 1 per cent. of its employees working in the United Kingdom. The company is registered in the Dutch Antilles. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether at any stage he or his chief of staff were aware, as he signed the letter, that it was in support of someone who had donated money to the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that it was a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal was a donor to the Labour party. However, what the right hon. Gentleman

    199
    says about the letter is total nonsense. It was written at the instigation of the British embassy in Romania. It was written for the very simple reason that this was a reform, namely the selling off of an old state industry, which we supported strongly. I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded. What is more, I am pleased that the embassy asked us to do this—it was the right thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that because the company is owned by someone who is a supporter of the Labour party, we should not write such a letter, even though the British embassy requests it, that is totally contrary to the practice of previous Governments throughout the ages.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister already knows that, apparently, in the draft letter the word "friend" was struck out before he even signed it. The real point is not whether the Prime Minister was right to sign on behalf of the company but how many of the companies that employ fewer than 100 employees in this country and are registered abroad he backs by letters to foreign countries in support of contracts? The Prime Minister seems to have missed the point. Until he is able to say that he knew specifically about the matter and discussed it with his chief of staff and then decided, despite that, to go ahead, we will never be the clearer and will always be left doubting whether the Prime Minister acted in the best interests of Britain. To clear this up, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he will agree to a full public and independent inquiry into this affair?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly tell the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that—it is no. As I pointed out a moment ago, I signed the letter unchanged, and it made no mention of Mr. Mittal. However, had it done so, it would still have been entirely the right thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was wrong to sign the letter. I will explain again to Conservative Members why I did so.
    The embassy in Romania asked us to sign the letter because it was an important contract. We fully supported the Romanian Government's policy of economic reform. We therefore wanted to celebrate the fact that the contract had been awarded to a British company and the fact that the Romanian Government's programme of economic reform was right for Romania. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the comments of the Romanian Prime Minister today, plainly puzzled at the nonsense being raised by Conservative Members, he will see that the decision to award the contract was made before the letter was even written. Therefore, all we were doing was welcoming the fact that this process of economic reform was going forward.
    The reason the right hon. Gentleman is raising this is simple—no one would know of any donations but for the legislation that we introduced—it is because the Conservative party got into such difficulty in the previous Parliament, because previous leading members of the Conservative party are either in jail or have just come out of jail—[Interruption.] What Conservative Members want to do, because of the trouble they got into, is smear us with the same brush. I am afraid that all they do when they engage in this nonsense is remind people of their own record.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Derek Twigg: My constituency has some of the highest mortality rates in the country for certain cancers. What concerns my constituents are the inequalities in health service provision. Historically, we have had a shortage of health professionals for a number of years. What are the Government doing to ensure that we have more professionals, such as doctors and nurses, in the health service so that health inequalities in areas such as mine are dealt with?
    The Prime Minister: The most important thing that we can do to recruit more professionals into the health service is obviously to put in the extra investment. That is why we are recruiting more doctors, more nurses and more consultants. We are recruiting at every level of the health service for a very simple reason: we believe that one of the principal problems of the health service is undercapacity in it. We need those doctors and nurses. In the past year alone, we have recruited more than 15,000 more nurses. As a result of that, we will meet the NHS planned target on recruitment of nurses some two years ahead of schedule. That will only succeed if we keep that investment going through the health service and do not take it out—which is of course the policy of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I fully associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes paid to the late Princess Margaret. Our condolences go to the other members of the royal family.
    May I invite the Prime Minister to take the opportunity this afternoon to welcome the decision—the policy initiative—taken this week in the Welsh Assembly by his party and by the Liberal Democrats to reintroduce grants for poorer Welsh students?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to congratulate the Welsh Assembly on its decision. Obviously, we are looking at how we can improve access for students in our country. It is worth pointing out that, under the proposals introduced by the Government, 50 per cent. of students do not—I think—pay tuition fees.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister's welcome is itself welcome. Given that his party and our own party have legislated both in Scotland and in Wales for a fairer deal for our students and potential students, is not the logic of that position that we should legislate at Westminster as well? The right hon. Gentleman would have the support of two thirds or four fifths of his Back Benchers. Why does not he do it?
    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the Scottish system, that is different altogether from grants for poorer students. In fact, in this country, we already have bursaries for some of the poorer students and, yes, we are looking at how we can give poorer students greater opportunities to apply for those bursaries. That is important.

    201
    In respect of Scotland, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Scotland is entitled to go its own way on this—that is part of the devolution settlement. The right hon. Gentleman should point out to people that in fact students in Scotland pay as a result of the Scottish system. We are looking at how we can achieve a fairer balance between the contribution the state makes and the contribution students make; but if we are to get our higher education participation rates above 50 per cent. there is no way that we can do that under the old system. That was why, under the previous Government, Sir Ronald Dearing—now Lord Dearing—held an inquiry into how we could change the system. In today's world, there is no way that we shall be able to get more and more students in and still get resources to the front line of universities unless we change the system of student finance. That is why we have introduced the reforms that we are making. We are looking particularly at how we can help poorer students, but there is no way out of that difficult choice on the balance between state funding and student contribution.
    Llew Smith: Does the Prime Minister support the sentiments expressed in the Green Paper published by the Foreign Office yesterday, which suggest that we should employ mercenaries—who often work for the most odious regimes and whose only loyalty is to money—to support the United Nations in a crisis, because among other things, they are cheaper than our own national armed forces?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, our own armed forces do fantastic work peacekeeping throughout the world. I think that the Foreign Secretary was saying that the use of mercenaries has to come within some proper system of regulation. Until now, that has not been the case and that is why it is important that we ensure that there are proper rules on the use of mercenaries.
    Chris Grayling: I have given the Prime Minister prior notice of this question. Last week at Prime Minister's Question Time, I challenged the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to the House about Railtrack on 19 December, when he said:
    "However, the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288-9.]
    Since last week, the administrator has again given evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which he contradicted that statement by the Prime Minister. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a transcript of that evidence. Will he today accept that his statement was not correct and will he withdraw it?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid I will not—on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman sent me. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the administrator to give a full account of the exact assets and liabilities of Railtrack, at a later date. However, one thing is clear: the reason that the company had to be put into administration was that it was effectively not a going concern—it was totally dependent on
    202
    Government subsidy. When the administrator makes his final tally and accounts, I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that I am right and that he is wrong.
    Helen Jones: The Prime Minister may be aware that the new accident and emergency unit to be built at Warrington hospital is a pilot project in which staff expertise will be used to design better emergency care for patients. Will he join me in congratulating the staff at Warrington on the work that they have put into the project and in recognising their skill? Will he assure me and the House that any NHS reforms will draw on the expertise of those who understand it best—the staff?
    The Prime Minister: That is part of a programme of renovation of all the accident and emergency departments that are needed in the country. They are under tremendous pressure—of course they are—and the staff do a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend's example is one among many of how changes in working practices, extra staff and extra investment in capital and equipment are making a real difference.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The Prime Minister will be aware that, 10 days ago, the city of Hereford was effectively cut in two when the River Wye flooded for the third time in four years. Businesses were affected, homes were flooded and the city was gridlocked. Although a flood alleviation scheme is in place, there are real concerns that it might be delayed because of statutory consultation and the discovery of archaeological remains. Will he assure the people of the city of Hereford that if there is a delay, any increased costs will be met by Government funds and not by the flood defence committee?
    The Prime Minister: May I express my sympathy for those affected by the floods in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? I think that the Environment Agency is considering a scheme to deal with that problem. It has to be subject to a certain amount of consultation, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the process is as swift as possible and I am happy to correspond with him on how it will be taken forward.
    Caroline Flint: For more than 20 years, employees who contracted lung cancer through exposure to asbestos have been compensated. However, a recent Court of Appeal judgment threatens thousands of current and future claimants who cannot identify the fibre or fibres that first caused the cancer. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently and ensure that the Government do whatever they can to overturn that cruel injustice?
    The Prime Minister: The judgment has been widely perceived as an injustice and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will announce today that we shall pay compensation to the relevant people who meet the qualifying criteria, which could mean payments of more than £30,000. We are

    203
    aware of the problem and we are doing our very best to deal with it, but, obviously, we must study the judgment's consequences carefully.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether street crime in this country has gone up or down since he was re-elected?
    The Prime Minister: According to the British crime survey, overall levels of crime are down, as is violent crime. However, it is correct to say that street crime has risen significantly in the past year, which is why we are taking a series of measures to deal with it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I suggest that the Prime Minister heed his own advice. When he was shadow Home Secretary, he said that
    "the country is not looking for complacent statements about the situation getting better when it is getting worse".—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 550.]
    Home Office figures leaked last weekend show that street crime nationwide has not just risen, but risen by more than a quarter since the election. Perhaps the Prime Minister can also tell us whether muggings and street crime in London have risen or fallen since the election.
    The Prime Minister: I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that street crime has risen, particularly in the past year. I said that we are taking a series of actions necessary to deal with that. Let me explain them. First, we are recruiting more police officers. Indeed, in London, in just the past few months, there are more than 600 extra officers and, since this time last year, more than 1,000 extra officers. Last year, there were more than 2,500 extra recruits, and I am pleased to tell the House that, this January, recruitment was up 20 per cent. on last year.
    There are also reforms in the new Police Reform Bill that will allow new powers for civilian staff, so that we can free up more officers on the beat. There is also record investment in closed circuit television—some £200 million. We are also funding some 400 extra secure accommodation places and 2,500 more prison places. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask why street crime is going up. One of the main reasons is to do with the theft of mobile phones, which accounts for about one third of the rise in street robbery. As a result of the measures that we are taking, however, we will be able to get that down. But, of course, that will only happen if we invest in extra police, CCTV and secure accommodation places, rather than take it out, which is the Conservative party's position.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That was a very long answer, but not the answer to the question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him whether, in London, muggings and street crime—two separate categories of crime—had gone up or down. The answer is that street crime in London has gone up by nearly 40 per cent. and muggings have gone up by one third since he was re-elected. That means that people in London have suffered something like 183 street crimes a day, every day since he was re-elected. The Prime Minister has just said, "It's all right; we are getting more police," but his own Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen
    204
    (Mr. Denham), has now confirmed that Metropolitan police figures show that they were short by 1,200 officers last year. No wonder the chairman of the Police Federation has said:
    "Morale has reached an all-time low."
    The reality of the Prime Minister's tenure is simply that in London, people are now twice as likely to be mugged walking the streets as they would be in New York. Does he not think that that is a record of failure by any measure?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is correct that street crime and mugging have gone up in London in the past year, which is precisely why we are taking the action that we are taking. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the number of police in place in the past year, but, as I say, in London alone, more than 1,000 extra police have been recruited. Indeed, as a result of the additional investment, I think that, by the end of the year, we will have record numbers of police—more than in all the years of Conservative Government. It is correct, of course, that one of the answers is to get more police on the beat, more investment in secure accommodation and swifter court action. That is exactly what we are doing, but the key to doing all of it is to put in the extra investment. [Interruption.] The Conservatives go on about five years, but, overall, the crime rate doubled under the 18 years of Conservative Government, while in the five years of this Government it has fallen, not risen. Vehicle crime is down by 30 per cent; burglary is down by more than 20 per cent. Overall, crime is down by 12 per cent. So if we compare the records of Conservative and Labour Governments, we see that, under the Tories, crime doubled; under us, it has fallen.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    John McDonnell: The Prime Minister will have heard the announcement this morning by British Airways, based in my constituency, of 6,000 job losses on top of the 7,000 job losses announced before Christmas. The aviation industry is recovering slowly from the events of 11 September and is grateful to the Government for the assistance that they have provided, but would he be willing to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the west London airport constituencies to consider not only the short-term measures that can help those people who are losing their jobs, but the long-term measures that will help us to tackle the structural problems in our local economy?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the concern that there must be about the job losses announced by British Airways, and our sympathies are with the constituents in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other constituencies that will be primarily affected by those losses. I know that this announcement has been the product of detailed consultation, however. The company has to engage in restructuring, and it has been closely involved with the unions on how that is to be carried out.

    205
    I would, however, certainly be very pleased to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the area affected.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the Prime Minister agree that the anticipated massive increases in council tax in authorities throughout the country will particularly hurt pensioners and those on low incomes? Will he consider that the Government should give urgent consideration to looking at the underfunding of basic services such as social services? Will he further look at the basis of local taxation, so that it relates better to ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: I understand why the Liberal Democrats are always keen to widen the tax base, but it may not be the case that everyone wishes to do so. I put it to the hon. Lady, however, that the amount of money that we are giving to local government has significantly increased. Let us wait and see what the actual council tax rises are.
    The hon. Lady spoke of the position of pensioners. Of course we are concerned if any pensioners face unacceptable rises in their council tax, but I would point out to her that the Government have done a lot for the income of pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do about it?"] Let me explain what we have already done. We have made large increases to the basic state pension, introduced the £200 winter allowance, as well as free television licences for the over-75s and the minimum income guarantee. In fact, we have put billions of pounds of extra money into helping pensioners. Of course we will watch carefully what happens in relation to council tax, but I hope that the hon. Lady would accept that we have done our level best to try to raise the income of pensioners.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When he will next visit Northern Ireland? I should say that it is a closed question.
    The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me.
    I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Barnes: Tomorrow there is to be an important debate in Westminster Hall about those forced into exile from Northern Ireland by paramilitary intimidation. As representatives of Sinn Fein are now allowed into Westminster, they could at least listen to that debate; and would it not be a good idea if, afterwards, they were to have discussions with those of us who attend that debate to consider the ways and means by which paramilitary organisations will end intimidation? After all, I believe that that was the reason why many of us wanted those representatives here.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that he is right. I hope that representatives of Sinn
    206
    Fein listen to the debate and I hope that they are prepared to take part in discussions. Indeed, I hope that all those political parties that have been connected with paramilitary organisations are prepared to take part, because this is not simply something that is about republicans; it also applies to loyalists.
    If we are genuinely concerned, as we should be, about putting the past to rest in Northern Ireland, one major part of that is people who were intimidated out of the country—the so-called exiles. Of course they should be allowed to return in peace. That, I think, would be a proper part of any significant undertaking in relation to the peace process. If the parties really support the peace process, they should support every dimension of it.
    Mr. Michael Mates: It is very good to hear the Prime Minister going that far, but will he go a little further? Is it not rather shameful that the Government should be considering introducing legislation to give amnesty to criminals who are outside this country, and to prisoners who escaped, allowing them to return? Distasteful as that may be, it may be necessary in the overall context of the peace process, but will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will use his considerable personal influence to ensure that no such legislation is brought to the House before he has an absolute guarantee from those who control the paramilitaries and the political parties that are associated with them that the punishment beatings and expulsions will end? In that way it would be a two-sided agreement and not, like so many in the past, a one-sided one?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about recognising the necessity of making difficult—indeed, distasteful—choices in moving the peace process forward. I will certainly listen very carefully to what he said. I repeat that there can be no place for punishment beatings, attempts to exile people or any so-called paramilitary activity which is outside the rule of law and destined to undermine democracy rather than support it. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree that we should make it quite clear that those people who have been excluded from Northern Ireland should be allowed to return.
    Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the equal value claim made by female canteen workers against the former British Coal? Although progress has been made and £40 million has been paid out to 1,300 workers, more than double that number are in the same situation and are set to receive nothing. The problem springs directly from bad practice by one of the trade unions. In the spirit of fairness, will the Prime Minister join us in looking for a solution?
    The Prime Minister: The relevant Secretary of State and I will note my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to state that we have paid out £40 million and that more than 1,000 people who were affected have received compensation. The difficulty is that strict rules govern whether equal pay claims are allowed and there would be considerable implications were we to digress from those.

    207
    I am happy to consider my hon. Friend's concern, but I am afraid that I can make no promises or give any undertakings in that respect.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Prime Minister break one of his new year resolutions and take time to speak to Mr. Ken Livingstone today? Will he
    208
    tell him that the mayor of New York is a welcome visitor to London today and that if Mr. Livingstone wants to know how to run a great city properly, he should have discussions with him?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly be in a better position to consider that after my discussions with Mr. Giuliani today.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following question No. 1 to the Advocate-General yesterday, have you been able to reflect on the difficult problems of media privilege on the one hand and parliamentary privilege on the other in relation to the trial that is taking place at Zeist on events at Lockerbie?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
I have no responsibility for what may or may not be said by the press. My responsibility is to the House and to uphold the rules that it has agreed will regulate its proceedings. It has long been the practice of the House that matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law may not be raised in debate or in other parliamentary proceedings, including questions.
On 15 November 2001, the House reaffirmed and clarified earlier resolutions about matters bound by the sub judice rule. The 2001 resolution makes it plain that the rule covers appeal proceedings. I understand that an appeal is currently being heard on the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot, therefore, allow references to the case in the House until the appeal proceedings are ended. I hope that that helps him.
Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you prior notice of my concerns and you will have heard the exchange between myself and the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's Question Time. I have expressed concern over a period of time that Members should be able to rely on the accuracy of statements made by Ministers to the House. I am not satisfied with the response today and fear that the Prime Minister is unable to substantiate his comments. I seek your leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has written to me on that matter and I have replied to him. I will not comment on it when it is raised as a point of order. He has no right to continue raising it in such a way.

Patients Without Legal Capacity (Safeguards)
3.33 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide protection for persons with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being treated in hospital.
The Bill, which is supported by hon. Members from the three main parties, the charity Mencap and the Alzheimer's Society, attempts to close a loophole in the legal protection of the most vulnerable members of society. It would introduce a procedure whereby decisions that involve deprivations of liberty are taken in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law which can be challenged. That will ensure that patients who are informally detained benefit, as far as is practicable, from the rights that formally detained patients have under the Mental Health Act 1983 the moment a carer challenges the informal decision.
My Bill applies to people with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being admitted to hospital. They have no capacity to consent to admission but are deemed from their behaviour not to have dissented to that admission. The proposals would apply to those with severe learning disabilities who are unable to make decisions for themselves and to people with dementia whose loss of capacity may be permanent.
The issue was prominently highlighted in the Bournewood case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is one of the Bill's supporters. The case is that of a 48-year-old autistic man, known for legal reasons as Mr. L, who cannot speak. Mr. L had been a resident at a hospital run by the Bournewood NHS trust and had gone to live with a couple who were his carers. They regarded him as one of the family. One day, at a day centre, Mr. L became agitated. His carers could not be contacted, and Mr. L was given a sedative and taken to hospital. The doctor decided that there was no need to detain Mr. L in hospital under the Mental Health Act as Mr. L was compliant and did not resist or attempt to run away. He was kept in hospital on an informal basis.
Mr. L's carers described the fact that they were not allowed to see him for nearly four months
"as of the greatest importance to Mr. L".
They demanded his release but had no legal basis on which to challenge the doctor's decision. The carers took action against the trust, claiming that he was unlawfully detained. The Court of Appeal ruled that he was unlawfully detained, but the decision was reversed in the House of Lords. The judgments relate to the scope of section 131 of the 1983 Act. This section preserves the right to admit on the basis of common law. Common law is a useful concept, but it contains none of the safeguards of that Act, and that is what my Bill seeks to address.
In any event, the concerns raised in the case of Mr. L certainly have not gone away. At the time of the judgment, Lord Justice Steyn said that those patients who would continue to be admitted informally would not benefit from any of the protections provided by the 1983 Act. In particular, they would continue not to have the right to apply for, or to be automatically referred to, mental health review tribunals in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

211
Currently, people who for whatever reason lack the mental capacity to consent or dissent can be informally detained indefinitely, on the opinion of a single doctor. Relatives and carers have no right to appeal against the doctor's view of the best interests of the person being detained; nor do they have a right to be consulted prior to the detention. There is no mechanism to review the lawfulness of the detention and no requirement to review the patient's conditions of detention. Such patients are not protected by any formal safeguards at all and have to rely on good professional practice to defend them. They are not even open to a writ of habeas corpus since they are not being detained. That places effective and unqualified control in the hands of hospital psychiatrists and other health care professionals.
I am aware of other cases. An Alzheimer's sufferer, Mrs. P, has been informally admitted to hospital because of her aggressive behaviour. She is very agitated and her carer—I shall call her Joyce—does not think that she should be in hospital, but Joyce has no legal basis for challenging the doctor's decision that Mrs. P should remain in hospital. The Bill would allow Joyce to challenge the decision on whether Mrs. P should be allowed to go home. The Alzheimer's Society tells me that this case is typical of those in a number of calls that it receives on its helpline each week.
I am not for one moment suggesting that all those cases should or would proceed to a tribunal. Speaking from experience, however, I think that if carers knew that legal safeguards were in effect, that would give them the confidence to dispute a decision to detain or continue to detain their loved one if they did not believe it to be in that person's best interests.
The Government have published a White Paper on the review of the Mental Health Act. It contains proposals to address the deficiencies in the current legal framework, but I do not know when a Bill will be introduced or whether it will deal with this issue. I believe that my Bill would do so in a simple and effective manner. It is not
212
about preventing informal admissions when nobody objects to them, about undoing the good work of the Mental Health Act review or about putting the cart before the horse in mental health reform.
We cannot ignore the fact that the Bournewood case has drawn attention to the deficiencies in the present law. Mr. L was detained without any right to have his detention reviewed by an independent tribunal. Only one month ago, the health ombudsman strongly criticised the Bournewood Trust for detaining Mr. L for four months. My Bill provides that once someone's placement is challenged, formal procedures come into play.
The way in which we choose to safeguard the rights of individuals who do not have a voice to speak up for themselves reflects our maturity as a civilised society. Reform is needed to uphold an individual's rights to liberty and to be treated with dignity, and to ensure their freedom from detention. We also need to safeguard against misjudgments and lapses of judgment on the part of health professionals—these can occur.
The law as it stands fails to give adequate protection to a vulnerable group of individuals, and it discriminates against those who are most disadvantaged and their families and carers. Mr. L's carers have already sought an application arguing that Mr. L's detention contravened article 5 of the European convention on human rights. I hope that the House will accept my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. David Amess, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Roger Berry, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Tom Clarke, Dr. Julian Lewis, Jim Dobbin, Dr. Ian Gibson, Ms Debra Shipley and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

Patients Without Legal Capacity (Safeguards)
  PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS)
  Mrs. Helen Clark accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide protection for persons with a mental disorder who are unable to consent to being treated in hospital: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 94]

Standards and Privileges
[The Fifth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2001–02, HC 605-I & II, on the Complaint against Mr. Keith Vaz, is relevant.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 605-I); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East from the service of the House for one month.—[Mr. Stringer.]

3.42 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I completely accept the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee and its recommendation. I apologise to the Committee and the House. In so doing, I underline my unreserved support for the integrity of the House and its procedures.
I am very pleased that the report clears me of all the main allegations made against me. I note what the Committee says about minor issues relating to events that took place eight and 15 years ago. However, the Committee was critical of me in respect of two further matters, the first of which relates to a telephone call that my mother received from, she believes, one of the complainants, a person all of whose allegations were dismissed by the Committee and who has for almost two years subjected my wife to constant attention.
That person, Eileen Eggington, who told Mrs. Filkin that she was a former protection officer of Margaret Thatcher and Salman Rushdie, has represented Rita Gresty, a former employee of my wife's law practice, in various claims against my wife, none of which has been sustained and none of which relates to me. Miss Eggington told Mrs. Filkin that Rita Gresty, sadly, has been suffering from a serious illness, and despite what has happened, I very much hope that she will make a full recovery.
I reported the call in good faith to the police and to Mrs. Filkin. My only concern in so doing was the welfare of my mother. My mother, a cancer patient who is seriously ill, has never been interviewed about those matters, although she is most willing to explain what happened. The police wrote to her on 25 January; I am most grateful for their response.
The second criticism is that I have not co-operated with Mrs. Filkin. I believe that I have co-operated in every possible way, and I have sought legal and other advice throughout the process to ensure that I have done so. I have given hundreds of answers and numerous supporting documents. I shall not rehearse again on the Floor of the House my real concerns about process. However, there is little point in having rules of procedure—written by the commissioner and agreed by the House on 5 April 2000—which appear not to have been adhered to.
May I make one plea for the future? It is that evidence collected by the commissioner should be retained so that the Member can examine it. My attempts to obtain a crucial tape recording of a meeting between Mrs. Filkin, Miss Eggington and Mrs. Gresty were frustrated when I was told on 5 February, three days before the report was published, that the tape had been erased. Mrs. Filkin
214

decided to publish her memorandum, as she herself stated, without my corrections of fact, comments or observations. She has a right to do so.
The inquiry, like others, has been dogged by leaks. Mrs. Filkin's report was given to a Sunday newspaper, and the Committee's draft report to another Sunday newspaper. I am grateful to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who has always been courteous and helpful to me, for initiating a leak inquiry. I am sure that he will pursue that vigorously, and I look forward to hearing the results. The leaking of a Select Committee report in this way is, of course, a contempt of the House.
Much has been made of my connection with members of the Asian community. I am proud of my ethnic origin. I am proud of what the Asian community has done. The community must always be allowed to take its rightful place in society, and I shall continue to raise the concerns of the Asian community in an appropriate way. I am also grateful to my constituents in Leicester, East for their tremendous support. I shall strive to repay that support with my continued devotion to them.
The House will shortly be debating the appointment of a new commissioner. I wish the new commissioner well, and I hope that we will have a new era in which the rules of natural justice and fairness are applied firmly. As Michael Beloff, in his opinion quoting Lord Atkin, said:
"Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms."
I am very sorry that I have detained the House today and the Committee on these matters. I apologise again most sincerely to the Committee and the House. Plaudits from one's colleagues are always gratefully received. I assure hon. Members that criticisms from them are taken most seriously indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak. In accordance with precedent, I shall now withdraw.
3.47 pm
Sir George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) felt unable to make a personal statement in the usual way. That means that I will need to say a little more than I had hoped. I am very disappointed that, for the second time in less than four months, I have to support a motion to suspend a fellow Member from the service of the House.
The report is my Committee's second major report and, like the last one, it brings to a conclusion an inquiry that was started in the previous Parliament. I am glad to say that the Committee is now up to date with its work. I believe that both the reports give further proof that the system of parliamentary self-regulation is working successfully.
I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for the hard work that they have put into the report over the past two months. We are all grateful to the commissioner for her work in investigating these complaints since last March—indeed, for her distinguished service to the House since her appointment three years ago.
I need spend very little time on the complaints originally made against the hon. Gentleman. Of the 11 allegations, we upheld only three, two of which we did not regard as serious. We are having this debate today not because of the original complaints but because of the way in which the hon. Member responded to them. We were

215
deeply dissatisfied with the way in which, he dealt with the commissioner. The commissioner described his approach to the inquiry as one of
"obfuscation, prevarication, evasiveness and delay".
The commissioner has a job to do which the House has given her. All Members have a duty to co-operate with her inquiries. We found that the hon. Gentleman failed to do so. He did not answer her questions fully, directly, clearly and promptly. We were dismayed that it took him five months to provide the commissioner with information about his property interests, which must have been readily available to him. All the relevant correspondence is published in our report, so hon. Members can read it if they wish.
The hon. Gentleman was criticised by the Standards and Privileges Committee in the last Parliament for failing to co-operate with the earlier inquiry into complaints against him. That makes his lack of co-operation with the latest inquiry all the more serious. We found that the hon. Gentleman had failed in his duty of accountability under the code of conduct.
The more serious charge against the hon. Gentleman is that he wrongfully interfered with the House's investigation process. According to his oral evidence to us, his mother received a telephone call on 4 October last year and the words "Eggington" and "Filkin" were used. Miss Eggington is one of the complainants in this case. He informed the police that Miss Eggington had made a harassing telephone call to his mother, linked her with another witness in the case and gave the police her address. Then he told the commissioner that Miss Eggington had made the call, had claimed to be a police officer and had put questions to his mother, claiming to be acting on the commissioner's behalf.
Those allegations went way beyond what the hon. Gentleman and his mother told us they knew. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman made it clear to the commissioner that he expected her to follow up the matter. He asked the commissioner what action she proposed to take over his allegations against Miss Eggington. Miss Eggington has strongly denied these allegations, and the Committee accepts her evidence. We do not believe that she made any telephone call to Mrs. Vaz.
The police are now satisfied that no calls were received on the day in question which could be attributable to Miss Eggington or the other witness. The police officer in charge of the case said:
"We have found nothing that would lend weight to the allegations originally made by"
the hon. Gentleman. The police officer continued:
"Indeed, I am satisfied that no malicious calls were made."
The police would not make such categorical statements unless they were absolutely sure that they were well founded.
The Committee is also satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's allegations are false, yet on the basis of his false allegations, both Miss Eggington and the other witness that the hon. Gentleman identified were put through the ordeal of being interviewed by the police. The commissioner was also led to investigate his accusation against Miss Eggington.
216
We concluded that the hon. Gentleman recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the commissioner, which was not true and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility. The hon. Gentleman also set the commissioner on a false line of inquiry, then accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker. The hon. Gentleman failed in his public duty under the code of conduct and committed a contempt of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has made matters worse by his subsequent behaviour, which in my view has been aimed at undermining the entire investigative process. He was, perhaps, unwise to hold a press conference last Friday in which he sought to play down the severity of the Committee's report—he is quoted as saying:
"I am pleased that the Committee has found me innocent of many allegations"—
by focusing on the areas where complaints were not upheld and minimising the importance of those that were upheld. I believe that he was also unwise to criticise the punishment as "disproportionate" and the report as "misled".
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we leave the question of unwisdom, should not the House have some explanation as to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on the matter of leaks from the Committee? To some of us, that seems very unwise.
Sir George Young: I take the leaks seriously, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says. I have launched a leak inquiry. I hope that he will discover who leaked those documents as the leaking of them is damaging to the investigative process and the integrity of the Select Committees.
Returning to the matter of the punishment, we reflected carefully on the appropriate punishment. We did as Sir Gordon Downey proposed and had a tariff before us of all previous punishments. We were anxious to be consistent and to be fair to the hon. Gentleman and others who came before us. We unanimously agreed on the punishment, which hon. Members are now considering. It is for the House, not the hon. Gentleman, to decide whether it is disproportionate.
The report was not rushed out, as the hon. Gentleman asserted on Friday. The commissioner's report was completed on 13 December, two months before her term of office ended. It would have been submitted earlier if the hon. Gentleman had co-operated. I vigorously reject the claim that our report was rushed out to meet a deadline. We sat for many hours in January and February to complete it. We wanted to do that sooner rather than later because we believed that it was in the interests of the House and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman to conclude our inquiry. However, nothing was rushed about our proceedings and, as Chairman, I resent that implication. No voice went unheard, no argument was stifled. We deliberated responsibly and fairly, as hon. Members would expect.
The hon. Gentleman said, "Natural justice should prevail." Our findings against him show that he was perhaps ill advised to make a plea for natural justice. His strategy appears to have been to throw mud at the

217
commissioner in the hope that some might stick to the Committee. He asserted earlier that he had co-operated; he did not. He did much to obstruct our inquiry. He challenged the right of two members of the Committee to serve on it because they had signed an early-day motion. On the eve of our final meeting, he made representations that we should ditch the commissioner's report and start again.
We know that the hon. Gentleman has little time for the commissioner. The House is not debating her report, but that of the Select Committee. We read the commissioner's report and the annexes, we interviewed the hon. Gentleman and read all the documents that he presented to us. We then asked ourselves whether his behaviour fulfilled the code of conduct that the House has set.
In two similar debates, I said that the House is a forgiving place if an hon. Member admits that he has made a mistake. Even at this stage, the hon. Gentleman appears unable to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong. He has failed to apologise to Miss Eggington for what happened.
Our conclusion that the hon. Gentleman committed serious breaches of the code of conduct and contempt of the House was reached unanimously. We also unanimously concluded that he should be suspended for one month. I believe that we have been fair to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I ask the House to endorse the Committee's report.
3.57 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to make a small but important point, which I hope will be helpful. I have not read the whole report; I suspect that few hon. Members have. However, I read the summary with great care and anxiety. Paragraph 50 states:
"In his response to the investigation of the complaints against him since February 2000 Mr. Vaz failed in his duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct by refusing to submit himself to the scrutiny appropriate to his office as a Member."
The date is important because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was a Minister of the Crown.
We have to ask whether the relationship between the code of conduct that applies to ordinary Members properly interrelates with the ministerial code that the Prime Minister issued in July 2001. Several aspects clearly need reviewing in the light of the case. I appreciate that that is not the Committee's responsibility, but the Leader of the House is responsible for representing the House's views to his colleagues in the Government.
The first paragraph of the ministerial code states:
"Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct in performance of their duties."
It is not clear whether that refers to their duties as Ministers or as Members of the House, from which they derive their authority as Ministers under our constitution. The statement is not supplemented or explained by paragraph iv on page 2, which states:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".
218
It would seem that that does not apply to an individual Minister's personal interests, or to information that he should be obliged to give to the Committee set up by the House to enforce our rules of conduct.
Even the seven principles of public life, which are set out as an annexe to the ministerial code, do not provide the clarity to which we are entitled. They mention a number of qualities, including selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability and openness. Openness seems to be the most applicable to this case, and to the report from the Committee. The part of the code dealing with openness reads as follows:
"Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
Again, it is by no means clear whether that applies in this case, or whether it applies only to a Member who happens to hold ministerial office at a particular time.
All that I ask is that the Leader of the House gives us an undertaking that there should be a review of the interrelationship between our code of conduct and the ministerial code. They cannot be completely separated. Ministers have authority only under the House and under our parliamentary democracy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an undertaking that this issue will be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
4.1 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has fully accepted the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I think that the whole House accepts the Chairman's statement that the report was drawn up with all due consideration and no undue haste, and that it was unanimous. Clearly, however, findings of this kind will cast a long shadow over the reputation of any Member of the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I say a few brief words about the report and the punishment that it advises. I have known my hon. Friend—and his mother, a redoubtable woman who, in another era, would have been an MP of a peculiarly frightening type—for more than 25 years. This is a serious report and its findings are serious, but it is also the case that my hon. Friend has always been a conscientious and hard-working Member for all the people of his constituency, and he remains a very popular Member to this day.
Much has been made of my hon. Friend's relationship with the Asian community. Some of the allegations—both in the report and in the press—turn on that relationship. I remind the House, however, that when my hon. Friend entered the House in 1987, he was the only Member of Asian descent in this House or the upper House. For years after that, he dealt with casework from the Asian community across the midlands, and raised issues of policy in relation to the Asian community across the country. I hope that the findings of the report will not detract from the diligence with which he has pursued those issues and helped those many thousands of people.
I first entered the House in 1987, along with my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and the then Member for Tottenham. It is hard to look back now and remember the euphoria with

219
which we all came into the House. We were all relatively young, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was the youngest—the baby, if you like—of that particular gang. At that time, I do not think that we would ever have contemplated this type of report being produced about any of us, and it gives me great sadness to take part in this debate today.
4.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is indeed a sad occasion, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has just said. My view, for what it is worth, is that I would rather that there were no Register of Members' Interests or Committee on Standards and Privileges. I take what I recall to have been Enoch Powell's view on the Committee when it was set up, which is that we are trusted by our constituents to come here, and that we should be honourable people who can be trusted. About four years ago, a Labour Member informed me that he had been told that the rottweilers were after me because I had registered my disapproval of an action by the Prime Minister. We all dislike witch hunts; they do not add to the esteem of the House, and neither does this sort of occasion. I would rather that this did not happen, but, sadly, we do not live in an ideal world.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is a neighbour of mine in Leicestershire. That is why I am speaking in the debate, and why I submitted two complaints to the Standards and Privileges Committee, both of which were upheld. The hon. Gentleman and I have always had perfectly cordial relations, and I should hate to think that anyone believed there was a vendetta against him on my part or on the part of other Conservative Members. That is not the case. Indeed, it has been alleged that to make the complaints is in some way racist. That is not the case either. I made the complaints because in Leicestershire, as in all constituencies, allegations will be passed to a Member of Parliament if someone does not like what is going on in a neighbouring constituency and cannot obtain satisfaction from his or her own MP.
As I have said, both my complaints were upheld, although the Committee described them as not serious. I take issue with that slightly. My first complaint was that the hon. Gentleman had not registered a £3,000 donation from the Caparo company, or from Lord Paul, in 1993. That had been in The Sunday Telegraph some time last year, which is why I raised it. I hasten to add that I do not criticise Lord Paul in any way; but the explanation given for why the donation had not been registered was unacceptable.
The hon. Gentleman said:
"I was not aware that a Register was published in 1994. I was telephoned while I was at a European Council meeting in Stockholm. Access to Registers on a Friday night in Stockholm is not good."
I have always understood irony to be the lowest form of wit, and I must say that I concur in this instance.
The Committee said:
"We do not regard Mr. Vaz's initial failure to register as particularly serious, but he should have admitted his shortcoming frankly."
220
I will not take issue with the Committee, except to say that in my time as an MP no one has given me a £3,000 cheque for my association. People deal directly with the association. I am surprised that this should happen. Certainly, when large sums have come to the association, if not via me, they have been declared. I suspect that every Member on both sides of the House would say the same.
My other complaint concerned a law centre. Mr. Price-Jones, the former town clerk of Leicester city council, says:
"Mr. Vaz remained on the payroll of Leicester Advice and Information Services until at least the end of September 1987."
That was at least four months after the 1987 general election. It is not easy to forget that one is being paid for four months. It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that he was taking a holiday. I do not know of many organisations that would give people such a holiday. It is not a very big issue; the reason I raised these issues—
David Taylor: I believe that my hon. Friend said not that he had taken a holiday, but that he had been paid for accrued holiday that he had earned in the time leading up to the general election. That is rather different, is it not?
Mr. Robathan: He did say that, but I do not think that he was employed long enough to be given such a holiday. The hon. Gentleman, of course, takes an interest in the issue because he too is a Leicestershire Member.
I will not drag out my quotations from the Committee's report, but Mrs. Filkin considered the argument spurious, and did not accept it at all. That is the point.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that he had been cleared of various complaints. In fact, hon. Members should read the report. It says that inquiries were incomplete on several issues. That is different from complaints not being upheld or indeed being cleared. [Interruption.] It is in the report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is a member of the Select Committee, will read it.
This is part of a pattern since 1987. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was the baby of the group that was elected in 1987. He should perhaps have received better advice from his party Whips and party organisation. I do not believe him to be an evil person in any way. He could have been helped rather better here, but the problem is that it is part of a Labour party pattern.
I come now to the Labour party national executive committee inquiry and the Adjournment debate of 25 April 1995, to which Elizabeth Filkin referred, on local government in Leicestershire. In that debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) said:
"I have seen two detailed confidential reports to Labour's national executive committee. They were apparently sent to every member of that committee…under cover of a letter signed by 16 senior Leicester Labour politicians. They included…three former lord mayors of Leicester… the Labour party shows no signs of taking any action".—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 762.]
The charges of interference in the affairs of Leicester city council—
Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that that forms no

221
part at all of the Select Committee's report? I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is going on about those things, which are not in any way, shape or form part of the report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman must leave these matters to the occupant of the Chair but I understand the point that he makes and I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that we are discussing the report and he should direct his remarks to that.
Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I most certainly will. The point is that that matter was referred to by Elizabeth Filkin and by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who is in her place, in evidence to Elizabeth Filkin in the report last year.
I should like to take up the district auditor's report, which deals with the same matter that was raised in that Adjournment debate. It said:
"Housing bosses were wrong to reinstate an evicted tenant after an MP intervened and this cost Leicester city council some £1,800"—
[Interruption.] Instead of laughing, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) should understand that this is part of a pattern.
Elizabeth Filkin, in her report, dealing with the evidence of the hon. Member for Watford, to whom I spoke before she came into the Chamber, states:
"They arranged a further day's hearing, but came to no immediate conclusions and made no report. Ms Ward told me she was surprised when, the next day, the Party's regional secretary issued a press release announcing that the inquiry was complete and that the membership's concerns were being dealt with…Ms Ward expressed her concern to the regional secretary about this purported summary of the inquiry's conclusions."
That was a big issue. "Dispatches" made a programme on it. "Newsnight" did a story on it. For the Labour party to pretend that it did not know what was going on in the Leicester, East constituency Labour party is bizarre, because the NEC carried out an inquiry into it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying rather wide of the report. He should direct his remarks specifically to the report before the House.
Mr. Robathan: Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hear what you say and I shall not in any way transgress, except to say that I would like the NEC report to be published because it is relevant to what Mrs. Filkin was saying. [Interruption.] Since I am being so barracked, I will not go any further, but I hope—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman actually read the report, in which Ms Filkin says in fact that she paid no attention to the Labour party inquiry?
Mr. Robathan: I have indeed read the report. Mrs. Filkin paid no attention to that because it was not within her remit, but as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, it is within the remit of the Leader of the House. When he was Foreign Secretary, he said about the hon. Member for Leicester, East:
"I have seen nothing in any of the stories that have been produced about Mr. Vaz that are not innuendo and guilt by association as to where he is supposed to have broken the ministerial code of behaving properly as a minister."
222
Perhaps the Leader of the House will address that issue. He must have known about the NEC report, and perhaps he will publish it.
4.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: These are always melancholy occasions for the House and it gives no one any pleasure to deal with them. However, we must deal with them, as they are the key element in the self-regulatory mechanism that the House has set up to deal with such matters.
I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and all the members of the Committee for performing a difficult and melancholy task assiduously for a long period. I must also thank the commissioner for the way in which she has dealt with the matter, lengthy and complex though it has been.
I want to add my words to those of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). It is now time that the Government looked at the connection that should exist between our code of conduct, with which we are dealing, and the code that covers ministerial conduct. I do not want to press the point, but I hope that this occasion will give added impetus to the increasingly obvious necessity for that matter to be considered.
I hope that the House will support, with sadness, the recommendations made by the Committee in the hope that such support will represent yet another move towards right hon. and hon. Members understanding our obligations so that, in a sense, we can render the work of the Committee redundant.
4.16 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I add to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by expressing the Government's thanks to the Chairman and all members of the Standards and Privileges Committee. We also appreciate the diligence with which the commissioner has pursued this case. The work that she put into it is fully recorded in the 150 pages of text that the House is considering.
No Member with a balanced opinion can come to such a debate without a sense of regret about the matter before us. Nor should we come to it without a recognition of the necessity of acting on such a report. That is why the Government have acted quickly to bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity. That is right, and, according to tradition, we shall accept the Committee's recommendations and we expect that the House will do the same.
I listened with care to the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), which, were echoed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I shall reflect on those points. They would both expect me to consider their remarks calmly and with the text in front of me. Whatever might be the narrow interpretation of the text, there can be no question of the Government not taking fully into account and acting on such a report, which resulted in a Member being suspended from the House. That suspension plainly has a severe implication for whether such a Member, if he were a Minister, could continue as a Minister, whatever the text might say. We can consider whether there should be an explicit read-across between the two texts.

223
With those few words and as the House will soon be ready to come to a decision, I commend the report. We shall certainly accept all its recommendations, and reflect on what it may mean for the future in terms of the ministerial code.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 605-I); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East from the service of the House for one month

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
4.19 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I beg to move,
That Mr. Philip John Courtney Mawer be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 598, dated 6th February.
On behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I warmly recommend to the House the name of Mr. Philip Mawer as the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms set out in our report to the House.
The previous debate showed clearly the complexity of the commissioner's job and the qualities of toughness and persistence that are required; Mr. Mawer has those qualities in full measure.
I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. It is no secret that the past few weeks have not been happy ones on either side, but it is right that we should acknowledge her dedication to her work on behalf of the House. She undertook a number of difficult and complicated investigations and brought them to a successful conclusion. We believe that her work, together with the Standards and Privileges Committee's consideration of her reports, has fully validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation set up following the first Nolan report. I will have a word to say about that system shortly.
Like many other hon. Members, I have known and respected Mr. Mawer for his work as secretary-general of the General Synod, and more recently as secretary-general of the Archbishops' Council. He is a person of clear vision, absolute integrity and strong moral values. You would not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find those qualities in someone who has held the highest lay post in the Church of England.
Philip Mawer has much more to offer. He is a man of immense ability. He was principal private secretary to the Home Secretary, and when he was barely 40 he held one of the key jobs at under-secretary level in the Cabinet Office. Ten years before, as a relatively junior official, he was secretary to Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton riots. Lord Scarman, whose views we would all respect, described Philip Mawer as a very clever and hard-working man, with tremendous mastery of detail. Mr. Mawer is a brilliant man in handling questions of principle. Since then, his career has borne out Lord Scarman's assessment.
It is reasonable to ask and answer two questions: Mr. Mawer may be clever, but is he tough enough? Is he not a bit of an insider? The House may not be surprised to hear that Church of England politics are at least as tough as anything that we are used to in this place, although the vocabulary used may be a little more restrained. The issues with which Mr. Mawer has grappled in his present job include the ordination of women, the role of bishops in another place—for the avoidance of doubt, I use our conventional phrase to mean the House of Lords rather than any more exalted forum—and racial discrimination. Such issues are neither simple nor easy.
In one of Mr. Mawer's previous posts he was responsible for Prison Service discipline. In another post, he was head of industrial relations for the Prison Service. A private secretary to one of the most senior members of Government also needs to be pretty tough. The House

225
of Commons Commission has no doubt that, as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will be as tough as it takes. To use a phrase I used on television, he frightens the life out of me, so I do not know what he will do to our colleagues.
Is Mr. Mawer an insider? He certainly knows a good deal about this place and about politicians, which can only be a good thing. However, I inform anyone who thinks that familiarity will make him a soft touch that that is not likely to be the case. There is no shortage of people to testify to the fact that Philip Mawer is his own man and, if the House approves the motion, we will all soon come to know and respect his personal authority and independence.
Some may think that my description is of a rather fearsome person. No doubt, Philip Mawer can be fearsome when he wants to be, but he is also a man of understanding and trust. He will pull no punches in his reports, but he is someone whom I for one will readily consult in the certainty that our conversations will remain entirely private.
The Commission's report describes the selection process. We were determined to follow best practice for an appointment of this importance, and the interview board that produced the shortlist included two external members—Sir Gordon Downey and Lord Newton of Braintree, who is better known to us all as Tony Newton. In addition, the later stages of the sifting process, the meetings of the interview board and the final interviews by the Commission were observed by Ms Sheila Drew Smith, an independent assessor recommended by the Commission for Public Appointments. I should like to thank all three for their expert contributions, which were much appreciated.
Our report also notes that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, joined us for the final interviews. We were very glad to have his help, and to draw on his detailed knowledge of the work of the Committee and the commissioners. We look forward to hearing his views on the level of resources required to support the new commissioner's work, and to co-operating closely with him and his Committee.
I shall say a brief word about resources. Mr. Mawer's appointment will initially be on the basis that he will work three days a week, but it will be for him to judge how much time is required. If he thinks that four or five days a week are needed, there will be no difficulty about that.
David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend say why the commissioner will work for three days? The job of the commissioner who is leaving was advertised as requiring four days a week. More relevantly, she believes that the job should take up more than three days. I know that some would be happy if the job occupied only one day in the week, but I should have thought that four days would be far more suitable than three.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said in the previous debate that the work of his Committee had now concluded. Therefore, we will begin with a clean sheet. If the work requires three, four or five days a week, it will get three, four or five days. A pro rata increase in Mr. Mawer's salary would take that into account.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think that the Committee's work is finished; other inquiries are
226
going on, and the former commissioner was dealing with them. The Committee will continue to make inquiries. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the false impression that everything was suddenly clean, neat and orderly.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Commission found it necessary to give a large amount of backpay to the commissioner who has just resigned, as a result of the extra work that she had done? Will he also confirm that the commissioners did not act on the audit of the work that she was doing until after she had gone, and that she had been working under tremendous pressures? Will he explain—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) enough to answer.
Mr. Bell: With regard to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I was simply repeating a point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire in his statement in the previous debate—that the publication of the report that we discussed earlier concluded a particular piece of work. No doubt there will be other work in the pipeline.
I have no knowledge of the second matter raised by my hon. Friend. I should be happy to send him a written reply and, if necessary, place it in the Library.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I am sorry to delay the House. Will he say how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up his post in full, given that he might work only one, two or three days a week?
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to catch your eye a little later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As a former member of the Commission, the question of procedure and process is of great concern to me. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the commissioner would, if necessary, work more than three days a week. Is that provision formally and clearly set out in a proper contract of employment?
Mr. Bell: The answer to that question is yes.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, Mr. Mawer expects, if appointed by the House, to begin work from the beginning of March. Initially, he will work one or two days a week. The House will understand that it will take him a little while to relinquish his present responsibilities, but he will increase his commitment as quickly as he can. Those who know Philip Mawer as well as I do know that he will fulfil all the obligations thrust upon him, given that there are seven days in a week.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it somewhat surprising that, although the House of Commons has lost the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards under what he described as

227
unfortunate circumstances, our first opportunity to debate that is in a debate on the appointment of a new commissioner? Was that the view of the Commission, of which he is a member, or was the timing of the debate a matter for the usual channels?
Mr. Bell: The appropriate procedure is for the House of Commons Commission to propose the nomination of a candidate in a report presented to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The report was printed on 6 February and presented to the House; this is the first opportunity to debate it.
The House's internal revenue service is considering the staffing resources that the commissioner's office will require and we expect it to report to us shortly. We will then take the views of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the new commissioner, and we have undertaken to provide whatever resources are judged to be needed.
I said that I would return to self-regulation. Our present system was introduced following the recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee. Sir Gordon Downey, the first commissioner, pointed out in a recent article that the House went further than the Nolan committee recommended by giving the commissioner responsibility for assessing whether a case had been made as well as whether there was a case to answer. Sir Gordon also described the introduction of self-regulation as
"a major step for the House to take. Since Charles I and before, the Commons had spent much of its time resisting attempts by the monarchy to control it and the courts had no jurisdiction over it. Yet voluntarily, in 1995, the House subjected itself to outside scrutiny by a non-elected person. This was not a negligible reform."
There has been much discussion of late in the media about parliamentary self-regulation. In my view, self-regulation has to work; outside regulation could create profound constitutional difficulties. It is also my view that self-regulation works and that it will continue to do so. The key elements are the wise guidance and non-partisan recommendations that we expect from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and his Committee, the readiness of all of us to co-operate fully with the system and a strong, independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Mr. Mawer has all the qualities needed to ensure that the system of parliamentary self-regulation continues to work effectively, and that it is seen to do so both inside and outside the House of Commons.
Mrs. Browning: I have now had a chance to see the Speaker's paper, especially its provisions on resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pressing this point again, but it is pertinent to what I would like to say later if I get the opportunity. Has the new commissioner been given a formal written contract of employment—as we would understand the term in commercial environments, and as opposed to a job description—that clearly sets out not only the parameters and conditions of the job but the processes to be applied when disputes arise. I note that resources have now been brought under the remit of the IRS and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is extremely important, however, if the new commissioner is not to experience
228
the same difficulties as the previous commissioner, that there is a contract of employment that can be made available to members of the House of Commons Commission.
Mr. Bell: There certainly is a contract. It is a proper contract and, although I believe that it may be confidential, it covers all the points that the hon. Lady raises.
With that, I commend the motion to the House, and I commend Mr. Mawer to the House.
4.35 pm
Sir George Young: I should like briefly to endorse the speech made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and thank the Commission for allowing me to take part in the selection process to choose the new commissioner. The Committee on Standards and Privileges clearly has an interest in that appointment and I know that its members welcomed representation in the decision-making process. I found that process thorough and professional. We were confronted with some high-calibre candidates and, as a result, a difficult choice.
I welcome the decision to appoint Philip Mawer. He understands the House of Commons, but is independent of it. In my judgment, he has the right qualities of trust and discretion to develop the preventive and advisory role of the commissioner, to conduct investigations thoroughly and impartially and to prepare reports for the Committee. I look forward to working with him when he starts in March.
As the hon. Gentleman just said, Mr. Mawer's work will be especially important as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks, begins its review of self-regulation in the House of Commons.
I welcome the Commission's comments on resources, the fact that there is no restriction on the number of days that the commissioner will work and the recognition that the resources deemed necessary will be made available. That is welcome reassurance for my Committee.
Finally, may I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin? As Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I enjoyed a good working relationship with her. I admire the qualities that she brought to the job. She handled some complex issues—one of which we have just debated—with thoroughness, impartiality and some courage. She displayed the independence that is a key part of the role of the commissioner. I thank her for her work and wish her well in the future.
4.36 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to echo some of the points that have been made before returning to some more formidable points that the House might briefly consider.
I endorse exactly what the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges said about Elizabeth Filkin; she genuinely will be a difficult act to follow. We often use that phrase, but it is true in this case. Mr. Philip Mawer's curriculum vitae gives me every reason to believe that he is an admirable person to try to do this difficult job on our behalf.

229
We should recognise that over the past few months the perception of our ability to regulate our conduct in this place has been, at best, under attack. Some would say that our ability has been weakened; our role needs to be reviewed.
I hope, however, that hon. Members and people watching, listening to or following our proceedings will take comfort from the way in which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee approached the difficult issue that we addressed a few moments ago. The report is admirable and will, I hope, restore to some extent confidence outside and inside this place in our ability to self-regulate.
I note the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about our being looked at by Sir Nigel Wicks and his colleagues. I hope that the evidence taken by Sir Nigel will not be all negative. I hope that he will see some merit in the way in which we have handled such matters in the recent past as well as some points for inquiry and possibly criticism and improvement.
I hope that Sir Nigel will look carefully at the crucial relationship between the work of the commissioner and that of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in performing the difficult and sometimes invidious task of self-regulation. On many occasions, Members of the House and people outside this place have drawn my attention to the fact that that relationship is critical in achieving effective self-regulation. I am concerned that, on occasion, either the Committee has not seen that role with quite the clarity or definition that we would have hoped for, or the commissioner has found it difficult to see the proper frontier between his or her role and that of the Committee.
As one Member put it to me, it is surely the role of the commissioner to act as the linesman—to put up the flag—but it is the responsibility of the Committee to act as referee. That may not be a perfect way to describe the respective roles, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has some validity.
I share some of the anxiety that Members on both sides of the House expressed about how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up a full role and perform the full task that we are laying upon him. Initially—in a matter of weeks—he will be able to give us one day a week. If, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) responds to the debate, I hope that he will say how quickly we will progress to the absolute minimum requirement of three days; otherwise, a backlog will inevitably build up in a matter of months.
What period of notice do Mr. Mawer's ecclesiastical employers want him to work? Is he under a great obligation to them or, indeed, to a higher authority? [Interruption.] Hand signals are being given to me from across the House, although I do know not whether they are the result of divine intervention. A substantial backlog could be created within a matter of months, which would lead to a problem. We must hope that no cases are brought to the new commissioner's attention, but if they are it would clearly be unsatisfactory if his terms of employment failed to meet the needs of the House.
The House has not covered itself in glory by dealing with the matter as it has done in recent months—a view that is widely shared within it. Even if the media have been over-critical in some respects and have jumped to
230
conclusions, I am afraid that we have given them some cause to do so. We sometimes get the press that we deserve, and on this occasion we have.
I have a particular concern that is not new; indeed, I expressed it when the Braithwaite inquiry examined the way in which the House conducts its business, runs the building and performs its work. It seems invidious that we cannot question the Chairman of the Commission. Despite the responsibilities that we lay on the Speaker, we cannot challenge, question or probe him in the House. The issue before us should have brought that concern to our immediate attention.
I expressed that concern to Braithwaite in the different context of the financial management of the House, which involves millions of pounds. None the less, it is wrong to ask the Speaker to chair the Commission on our behalf, given that he cannot be accountable to, or answerable to, the House. We cannot question the Speaker in that manner, because to do so would endanger his authority in many other ways.
I hope that the Leader of the House, the Commission and the Speaker will look again at the problem, because it is likely to recur time and again if we do not address it now. That implies no criticism of successive Speakers or of successive members of the Commission. Back Benchers who are non-ex officio members of the Commission—at the moment there are two, but there will be three—serve the House in that capacity without payment, reward or recognition. Usually, they receive only brickbats, and we should think carefully about that. That role has been particularly onerous in recent months, and has subjected them to much criticism. I hope that we can consider that issue.
I pay full respect not only to the commissioner but to the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee undertook its responsibilities in particularly difficult circumstances in recent weeks. I enthusiastically endorse the nomination before us, but I hope that the Leader of the House and all those with a role in other parts of the building will think carefully about the issues that I have raised.
4.43pm
David Winnick: I begin by wishing the new parliamentary commissioner well—it would be wrong to do otherwise—and I hope that he will carry out his duties in the way that we would all wish. Indeed, I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the circumstances in which Elizabeth Filkin is leaving today are, to say the least, disquieting. My speech will be critical of the fact that her contract has not been renewed. If that is a minority point of view, so be it; it is mine and I want to explain why I have reached that conclusion.
When the House debated Elizabeth Filkin's appointment on 17 November 1998, there was much praise for the way in which she had carried out her previous duties.
I have given the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) notice that I shall refer to his remarks, and I make no criticism of him. He said of Mrs. Filkin:
"I encountered her when she was adjudicator for the Inland Revenue. I was impressed by her commitment to her job and her staff, but, crucially, I was impressed by the fact that she retained the confidence of the Revenue, the body that she was investigating. That showed that she was fair, and that her work commanded respect."

231
Likewise, I sent a note to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was then a Home Office Under-Secretary. She spoke on behalf of the Leader of the House and said of Elizabeth Filkin:
"Her recent role as the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security Contributions Agency will ensure that she brings to the post a wealth of experience and a reputation for independence and integrity."—[Official Report, 17 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 809-21.]
Of course, that did not necessarily mean that the arrangement would work in practice, but my argument is that Mrs. Filkin brought to the position the qualities mentioned by those two Members. She is leaving because she was too independent and too determined to be fobbed off in the investigations. That is why her contract was not renewed.
Those qualities—independence and determination—are normally thought to be admirable, not a reason for what amounts to dismissal. Although I have encountered criticism of Mrs. Filkin—not in the Chamber, but around the place—I have not heard a single Member say that she is politically biased for or against any particular party. In view of the investigation she carried out, any such accusation would be laughable.
It is strongly denied that there was any whispering campaign against Mrs. Filkin, but she clearly does not accept that, as stated in the correspondence between her and the Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that perhaps the question of who chairs the Commission should be considered. I make no criticism of the Speaker, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to quote the Speaker in debate, and one does not wish to do so because it is rather invidious. That is the situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, the House of Commons praised the work undertaken by Mrs. Filkin. Indeed, she is praised in the House of Commons Commission document. Fine words, but this question is inevitable: if she carried out her duties in such a manner, why was she not reappointed?
Mrs. Filkin wrote to the Speaker on 28 November, and it is important for her view as set out in that letter to be heard:
"I wrote to the Clerk of the House on 5 November 2001 to request that you explain to me why it has been decided that, exceptionally, I would not be offered a second term. I have received no explanation. The Leader of the House, in response to a question about this new procedure of readvertising the post after one term, said that it had been adopted in the interests of openness and transparency. This is hard to accept. This arrangement was not required in the case of my predecessor, nor, it appears from the published advertisement, will it be for my successor."
It is up to the House to decide with what seriousness to take the following comment—I take it very seriously. She said:
"Security of position, which this decision violates, was established in relation to my predecessor. It applies across the board to Nolan-inspired posts which require independence and impartiality. Job security in such posts matters because it allows, where necessary, conclusions to be reached which may be unpopular with the employer in the short term."
Clearly, Mrs. Filkin is not leaving because she wished to do so. Clearly, she would have been willing to carry on in the position if her contract had been renewed. As I have said, we have had no explanation.
232
Why has not the present parliamentary commissioner, who will be leaving this week, been offered the position? It is said that she can apply for her own position—a rather humiliating situation, even if there was any chance that she would be accepted. Would a single hon. Member who is in the Chamber now say that, if Mrs. Filkin had gone through the humiliating procedure of applying for her own job, she would have stood a chance? No—the silence is adequate. The real criticism against Mrs. Filkin was not that she spoke to the press or that she involved herself in matters outside her remit. I do not believe that those allegations have any substance.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mrs. Filkin was regularly quoted in the press, including statements that she made on a Saturday, for example? How does he account for her having such ready access to the press on a day when servants are normally not available?
David Winnick: If the press rang the parliamentary commissioner and she was conducting an investigation, I see no reason why she should not have said so.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Winnick: I shall give way in a moment; I am replying to an intervention. Let us be clear—are we saying that, in effect, Mrs. Filkin has not been reappointed because she spoke to the press? If so, we should have had an explanation from the House of Commons Commission. Allegations about speaking to the press should be made official; let the House of Commons Commission say so, and we would then have an explanation that we could accept or reject. I do not think that we can work on the basis of what my hon. Friend has just said. I have a great deal of genuine respect for him, but I do not believe that that is a good explanation.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to make a differentiation about speaking to the press? Mrs. Filkin was entitled to speak to them about the nature of her work and her office, and we should not to impute from that that she was guilty of leaks, which she was not. I hope to deal with that later.
David Winnick: I entirely agree. I do not believe that she was responsible for leaking information in any way whatever, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has cleared that up.
Mr. Salmond: Would not the right way to bring complaints about our Standards Commissioner have been through the House of Commons Commission to the Floor of the House, where those issues could have been properly examined, debated and, I suspect, largely dismissed?
David Winnick: Indeed. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, it was up to the House of Commons Commission to deal with such issues. On reflection, it accepts that, in many ways, matters could have been dealt with very differently.
The critics say that Mrs. Filkin lacked a sense of balance and that she could not distinguish between serious allegations and those that were not in that category. Again, I do not believe that that was the case. She had a

233
duty to investigate fully. After all, until she investigated, how could she know whether the allegations had any substance? Let us not forget that this is not the Inland Revenue; this is a political battlefield. Hon. Members on each side of the House will make accusations against the other, as political ammunition. We are in politics—that is part of democracy. Such allegations are made, and it is up to the parliamentary commissioner to investigate them, recognising the place in which she undertakes her duties. She simply cannot say that they are tit-for-tat matters; she has to decide whether they have any substance.
The impression that one gets from the critics is that Mrs. Filkin had a wish to do down the Commons and make adverse reports as often as she could. I cannot for the life of me see why she should have any such motive. Why should she wish to do down the House of Commons?
An hon. Member, whom I shall not mention by constituency or name—I could not mention him by name in any case—told me today that he had been treated very fairly by the Standards Commissioner. He was one of several hon. Members who told me that the commissioner had asked to see them after allegations had been made about them as individuals, sometimes—as in the case of the hon. Member that I mentioned—allegations that were made outside the House. Such Members said that they were very impressed. They were heard courteously, their explanation was accepted, or very nearly accepted, and the commissioner made no adverse report but gave good advice. It is unfortunate that those hon. Members have not said that in today's debate; it would perhaps have given a sense of balance to what is happening.
When the parliamentary commissioner thought that there had been an infringement of the rules relating to outside financial interests, she said so regardless of position and seniority, and certainly party. Is not that what we wanted from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? Is not that the way in which we wanted the work to be carried out?
If we are to continue with self-regulation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has said should be the case, there is an argument that responsibility for appointing and renewing the contract of the parliamentary commissioner should be given to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If that were to happen, the recommended person would be subject, or otherwise, to the confirmation of the House, and then of course the House would debate accordingly. However, self-regulation has its difficulties. We are saying, in effect, that we should appoint the parliamentary commissioner and decide whether the contract should be renewed. By following that procedure, we arrived at the present very unhappy position.
It gives me no satisfaction whatever to have been so critical, but I am, as my remarks have obviously shown. I repeat that I would have liked the parliamentary commissioner to be reappointed. It was a shabby aspect of the whole matter that she was not reappointed to her position, and Elizabeth Filkin is leaving in circumstances that do not bring much credit to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Filkin can leave with a sense of pride, because she has carried out her duties in the way that she promised when appointed. She has been impartial and conscientious. She has acted honourably at all times—that is my view and seems to be the view of the House of Commons Commission—and has undertaken her duties
234
with undoubted ability. She is going—let us have no illusions on this score—simply because she has been too conscientious. That is why Elizabeth Filkin will be leaving the services of the House of Commons this week. By not renewing her contract—by allowing her to leave in such circumstances and without good reason—I believe that we have let ourselves down.
4.58 pm
Peter Bottomley: To summarise what I am about to say, I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).
I also agree with the nomination put forward for our approval by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The House of Commons Commission and those who helped it have made a good choice. I imagine that if they had not chosen Mr. Philip Mawer, they would have picked someone just about as good. They follow in the line of those who chose Sir Gordon Downey and Elizabeth Filkin.
No criticism can be made of the quality of the people who have been nominated to serve our country by being employed as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
There is a question of fact about who the commissioner is actually employed by. We are told that it is the House of Commons Commission, but I have looked at the 23rd annual report of the House of Commons Commission, trying to find a reference to the Commission's responsibilities in employing the commissioner. I have not found one.
Opening the report at random—say, in the middle where the staples are—I see that the Serjeant at Arms Department uses traffic lights to denote whether targets have been met. If they were used to test the Commission's actions over the past year with regard to the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the traffic light would not be smiling as it is on page 44 because performance is below target.
I do not intend to criticise any individual on the Commission, although I will get fairly close to that with the Leader of the House. In August last year, an article in the Financial Times reported
"Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, is unlikely to have her contract renewed when it expires in January—despite recent supportive comments from Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons."
It goes on to say that the remarks by the Leader of the House in the previous month
"were designed to 'cool' the whispering campaign against Ms Filkin and that his words should not be interpreted as his formal backing that she should stay on."
I do not want to ask the Leader of the House to explain how those remarks got into the newspaper. All I want to do is to use them as evidence that it was on the record and known to the House of Commons Commission by then that there was a whispering campaign against the commissioner.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to ask me about that, but with his permission I will respond. I checked my diary after he raised this matter in the House some time ago. In the two weeks preceding 20 August, I was not

235
in London; I was in Edinburgh. I spoke to no one from the Financial Times throughout that period and can shed no light on how those words appeared there. If he is suggesting that I communicated them to the Financial Times, I hope that he will withdraw the comment.
Peter Bottomley: I would, but I did not suggest that. The right hon. Gentleman should be slightly less sensitive.
Mr. Cook: I am being criticised; of course I am sensitive
Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman should wait until I get around to the criticism. So far, he has responded to a question that I explicitly did not put to him. I accept what he says and have not contradicted him. He has not faced an accusation.
I was making the point that people knew about the whispering campaign. If the House of Commons Commission was fulfilling the role of employer and also, therefore, protector, of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it needs to ask itself collectively whether any action was taken on the whispering campaigns against her before the Speaker's letter. I believe that the whispering campaign started long before that. The Commission should have taken action that would at least have become known to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about why the Commission did not intervene in the so-called whispering campaign. The Speaker wrote to Elizabeth Filkin but she was unable to supply evidence. Had the letter been sent earlier, there would have still been no evidence.
Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did better in the first part of that sentence. The Speaker, in his role as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission rather than in his role as Speaker—the distinction is not important and I am not criticising him in any way—wrote the letter in November. The Financial Times had the report in August and it only confirmed what many people already knew about the attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by those who felt vulnerable.
All I am trying to establish is that the House of Commons Commission or a member of it first asked the commissioner about a whispering campaign in November. The letter could have been better drafted. It could have said that the Commission would protect the person fulfilling the function of the commissioner, whether or not the whispering campaign and the pressure were having an effect on that person.
It is some years since I gave up my fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which used to be called the Institute of Personnel Management. However, my experience in personnel management is extensive. I have had ministerial and professional responsibility for it, and I know a lot about it.
What has happened to the present commissioner would, in most employments, be an open-and-shut case of unfair, constructive dismissal. I shall illustrate that with one example.
236
Answers from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who answers for the House of Commons Commission, say that the Commission knows that the commissioner has been working for five days a week. The Commission knows that it has been paying her for four days a week. It advertised her job at three days a week.
I turn now to the Leader of the House. On several occasions in the past two months, he has repeated the abbreviated remark, which is true, that the commissioner could apply for her job up to the moment when the applicants on the shortlist were interviewed. There is not a single recorded occasion on which the Leader of the House, speaking as a senior member of the Government and close associate of the Prime Minister, as the representative of the House or as a member of the House of Commons Commission, acknowledged in public that what he failed to say is that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she currently does for five days a week, on condition that she applied to do it for three days a week with 60 per cent. of her present work load.
Mr. Robin Cook indicated dissent,.
Peter Bottomley: When the Leader of the House shakes his head, I assume that he is agreeing with me.
Mr. Cook rose—
Peter Bottomley: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will say when, on the Floor of the House, he said that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she is doing for five days a week, but she had to apply to do it for three days a week.
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to respond by saying that what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not true. If the commissioner had applied for and got the job, she could certainly have asked to be appointed on the present basis, which is four days a week. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that if we had appointed her and she had sought to work for four days, then, just as with Mr. Mawer, she would have got four days. There is no question of her having been invited to apply on the basis of a cut in pay or hours.
Peter Bottomley: I shall not repeat it more than once, but my point is that I have not found a recorded occasion in the House in the past two months—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman would do better to listen. I have not found a recorded occasion in the past two months when he has stated the additional fact that he was inviting the commissioner to reapply for her job although it was advertised at three days a week. Not only was that fact not explicit; it was not mentioned at all.
We know that the commissioner was working five days a week, that the advertisement was for three days a week and that there had been a row about that reduction, but the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned that. From his reported remarks it sounded as though the commissioner could carry on as long as she applied—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interventions do not help the debate.
Peter Bottomley: With the Leader of the House chuntering away like that, I almost feel that I should apologise for speaking. The point has been made, and I think that he accepts it.
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will reply to his allegations.
Peter Bottomley: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cook: For the avoidance of doubt, there was never any suggestion, to Mrs. Filkin or to anyone else, that if she applied for the job and was reappointed, there would be a cut in pay or a cut in hours. Had she been reappointed, she would have retained her pay and her four days a week. Although the job was advertised at three days, we have made it plain in the House on several occasions that we were willing to discuss with whoever was appointed the number of days that that person would work. Indeed, I seem to recall my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) saying precisely that in relation to Mr. Mawer
Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House will be able to read what I said, and I hope that when he has done so, he will understand that his interventions have been off the point. I said that I would repeat what I had said only once, so I will not go on with that point.
We now come to the question of when the House of Commons Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, decided to pay the commissioner for the extra days that she has been working, when up to now she has not been paid for them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough for saying that if a written question is tabled, the House will be given that information. I think that the answer will confirm my belief.
No one on the Commission has been motivated by malice. However, the Commission's responses to certain matters included a combination of mistakes and misunderstandings, and an impression of apparent malice on the part of some people outside the Commission has been created.
Some inaccurate answers have been given which the Commission has, rightly, corrected. For example, it gave an answer that said that Sir Gordon Downey had been working—and been paid for—three days a week. In fact, he was always paid for four days a week. When he left his post, he said that if the work load decreased, the job could be done in three days a week, and that may have been the comment that people had in mind. It was a simple misunderstanding and the mistake has been corrected.
What was not correct was an assurance that the Leader of the House gave me in October, I believe. He asserted—which I think means that he thought, but did not know—that the Commission had followed the advice by which the House expects Ministers to abide in the code on public appointments. That assertion was wrong in three respects.
First, if someone is not up to the job, they should not have the chance to be reappointed. From the right hon. Gentleman's saying that if Elizabeth Filkin reapplied, she would immediately be put on the shortlist—and,
238
we presume, treated fairly and on her merits—we deduce that she was not only up to the job, but proven to be so to the extent that she would have reached the shortlist.
Elizabeth Filkin was as competent as her predecessor, Sir Gordon Downey, who was sounded out, not officially by the Commission but by a senior member of the Government, about whether he would be interested in a second term. Having reached the age of 70, his answer was, "No, but thank you". I think that I am right in saying that the advertisement for Elizabeth Filkin's successor states explicitly that reappointment was possible by mutual agreement. The House and the country are left with the question of why Elizabeth Filkin was not sounded out about reappointment. We have had no answer—perhaps there is none, but the question is real.
A second feature of the code on public appointments is that people should be required to go through open competition if they have served for 10 years, or if they are on their third term. Neither condition is true of Elizabeth Filkin: she would have been seeking a second term, or the House ought to have been seeking a second term for her.
Thirdly, if people are not to continue, they should have a decent amount of notice of that fact. Had Elizabeth Filkin applied for her own job at the advertised three days a week, she would have known whether she had got the job a week ago—a week before her current term ends. That breaks the code on ministerial appointments. Although the Leader of the House might have been right to say that he believed that the code had been followed, that belief, albeit genuinely held, was wrong on the three grounds that I have outlined.
The system matters. It does not matter whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is officially responsible to the House of Commons Commission, which has not distinguished itself in that role in the past three years, or to, say, the Committee on Standards in Public Life or its Chairman. That distinction is not especially important except to the secular theologists who advise the House.
It is right to consider whether the term should be longer, and whether reappointment should be offered unless there is a reason not to offer it. The current position is illustrated by the curious circumstances of the end of Elizabeth Filkin's term. She is right that the current assumption of independence and support for impartial, fair and competent work by her office has been challenged by the events of the past six months.
The only modification that I would make to the operation of the complaints procedure—only a minor part of the work load of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—is that in normal circumstances, a person making a complaint should be asked whether they have put it directly to the Member concerned. If the answer is no, the commissioner should urge the complainant to do so. Many misunderstandings could be dealt with and problems rectified if that were a preliminary step. However, that is a step for the House to institute, not for the commissioner herself.
I remind those who listen to our debates that the commissioner does not write the rules—the House writes them.
I turn to the curious—in a proper sense—appointment of Mr. John Stonborough to advise the Commission. I have not met him, and I will not be critical, but he has

239
a reputation as an adviser on crisis management. I do not fully understand why, if it is dealing properly with the appointment or reappointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Commission, or the House itself, would need such an adviser.
It is unfortunate that the "Londoner's Diary", in the Evening Standard, carried a report apparently directly quoting Mr. Stonborough. I do not think that any direct quotation in a newspaper necessarily means that the words were said or, if they were said, that they were reported in context. He was reported to have said something about the argument being one-sided and that, in some sense, he would balance that. The debate or argument ought to be in the House.
That leads me to the Prime Minister's answer to a question from—I think—the hon. Member for Walsall, North on the reappointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Prime Minister said that it was a matter for the House. Within hours, the Leader of the House said, "Yes, and it will wait until there is a nomination from the House of Commons Commission on who the successor might be", and that it would be possible for a Member to table an amendment to such a motion, substituting the name of Elizabeth Filkin for that of, say, Philip Mawer.
For all sorts of reasons, that is not a happy or sensible way of proceeding. The Leader of the House was wrong to suggest that it was. It clearly showed that, whichever hat he was wearing at the time, he was deliberately frustrating the option for the House to debate the merits of Mrs. Filkin. In fact, of course, we are debating the merits of Philip Mawer, which are not only self-evident but have been proclaimed by Members.
I do not think that the Prime Minister has his heart in this standards business. His whiter than white and cleaner than clean remarks do not really stand up. He has not explicitly made abiding by the parliamentary code part of the ministerial code, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said.
I commend to the Prime Minister his declaring, in his own voice, that abiding by Members' responsibilities is part of being a Minister, so that any Minister from now on who does not fully co-operate with the parliamentary standards procedure, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in particular, will cease to be a Minister. The option not to do so should just go. Then, the remarks that, sadly, were made in the previous debate on the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) by a Minister would not be necessary, although Members of Parliament could still draw such matters to the attention of the House.
The Prime Minister did not require the Deputy Prime Minister to accept the invitation from the Committee on Standards and Privileges to register the union flat. Frankly, the Prime Minister should have said to the Deputy Prime Minister, "You should." We have not had any explanation from either of them as to why that registration has not occurred.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: What has this got to do with the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
Peter Bottomley: In response to that question from a Government supporter, I was adding a few remarks on how I believe that the Prime Minister could help the system of which the commissioner is a significant part.
We then come to reports about the media and Elizabeth Filkin. The matter was first brought to my attention by somebody who asked me, "Did you see what she said at the Royal Society of Arts?" I asked, "What is she said to have said?" The Member pointed it out to me. I said, "I was at that meeting. That wasn't what she said; it wasn't the way she spoke. I was present, you weren't. What's the complaint?" I was told to look at what had been reported. Too many people seem to be sensitive about what is reported. The fact that the House of Commons Chamber is dominated at one end by a Press Gallery that is full of people who have the option to report what is said in the Chamber or spend their time listening to what people say in the Corridors seems to have passed such people by.
Commissioners—past, present and future—should be judged on what they are employed to do. I hope that, from now on, every commissioner will do what previous commissioners have done: explain their role and frankly answer questions about whether there is an inquiry into a complaint against a Member of Parliament. If the commissioner is not allowed to say yes or no to that, whispering campaigns against Members occur.
The parliamentary standards process is as good a protection to the public and to Members of Parliament alike, and it requires the commissioner to be able to give such factual answers. I have not heard the slightest whisper from a single journalist on any occasion during the past three years that Elizabeth Filkin said anything improper or out of order with regard to a current inquiry, unless it is considered improper for her to confirm that an inquiry is taking place or to say that no inquiry is taking place.
I think that Philip Mawer will do well. I think that Elizabeth Filkin did well. If he does as well as she did, or, certainly, as well as Gordon Downey did, the House will be well served.
As a tribute to Elizabeth Filkin, I quote the remarks of a director of the Britannia building society, who said that the question asked by the company about every proposal was whether it would pass the Filkin test—in other words, whether it was right. That is the question that she had to ask about what Members of Parliament were doing. Each of us, whether we came under her invigilation or not, will find that her advice has been good.
I hope that Philip Mawer's advice will be equally good and that he will have the support of the House. Elizabeth Filkin did not have that support from every quarter. It is about time that senior Members of the House, whether in government or not, gave her the support that she deserved, and they should give Philip Mawer the support that he will need.
5.20 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: As I did not take part in the previous debate, may I congratulate the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee on

241
the fairness and objectivity with which he presented the case on behalf of the Committee? It is no more than any of us would have expected of him.
I join others in endorsing the nomination of Mr. Mawer. I do not know him, but what I have heard of him suggests that he has every prospect of being able to take on a job which has certain fundamental flaws within it. The first flaw was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).
In the opening speech of the afternoon, there was a comment about the rules written by the commissioner. The rules were not written by the commissioner; they were written by the House of Commons. The problem for the House of Commons and for the commissioner was that when the House of Commons approved them, it did not understand the severity and tightness of the rules that it had introduced. The commissioner therefore bore much of the blame for carrying out the new standards and rules that the House, perhaps unwittingly, had determined. She should not be blamed for that.
The rules post-Nolan were made much tighter than many people realised. Indeed, we have made recommendations for a slight loosening of the rules, which I hope will be brought before the House in the near future.
The second flaw is the system. That was the point that I made when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was kind enough to let me intervene on his speech. As I said, I do not see that there is any problem with the commissioner speaking about her job. The allegation was of leaks.
As I was saying, the second flaw is the system itself. Within the system, anyone—too many people have been playing games in the House, as we know, with tit-for-tat referrals—can refer any colleague, or any outsider can refer any Member, and tell a journalist that he has done so. If that journalist then contacts the commissioner's office to confirm that the letter has been received, the next thing that we see is a headline "Sleaze inquiry against local Member"
Mrs. Browning: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are occasions when a matter comes into the public domain and is commented on in the Chamber. It is then put to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to investigate. However, when Members of Parliament decide to refer a matter to the commissioner for investigation, it is incumbent on them to wait for the conclusion of that process before notifying the world at large. I have made only one such referral to the commissioner, and I abided religiously by that rule. It would have been most unfair to have made the matter public before the commissioner had had a chance to conclude it. It is inevitable that the commissioner will be asked by the press if the matter goes the other way.
Mr. Williams: May I embarrass the hon. Lady by saying that I am sorry she gave me that prompt, because I was going to commend the way in which she dealt with the matter? The referrals that she made were based on a misinterpretation by the press of certain circumstances, and she could have tried to get easy publicity out of the situation. The referrals were then rejected by the commissioner, who never made any public comment on them. Since receiving that rebuttal, the hon. Lady has not attempted to make any political capital out of the matter.
242
That is how it should be done. I promise her that she was already in my mind because the case happened so recently.
Many of the so-called leaks were, for no reason, attributed to the commissioner. No one has ever been able to prove that against her. The person making the allegation has only to give the press the information that he has given the commissioner, which the commissioner may have shown to the witness, and the press can run a story based on the allegation without having got any information or endorsement from the commissioner.
David Winnick: Has there ever been a case in which Labour, Conservative or Liberal Members have made such allegations to the commissioner without telling the press what is going on? Being politicians, that is the first thing that they are likely to do. Why should anyone be surprised about that, given the nature of this place?
Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is putting the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in a most embarrassing position—her halo is positively glistening. She is genuinely one of whom I can say—
David Winnick: One exception.
Mr. Williams: She is the one who comes to mind, but there have probably been others. Indeed, there must have been, because the commissioner has often said, "I have had five or six referrals", and we have seen nothing about them in the press. Some hon. Members show integrity; others, unfortunately, cannot resist a headline and do not care what malicious damage they do to parliamentary colleagues by exploiting the situation.
Mrs. Browning: In the run-up to a general election, it has been the practice of some hon. Members spuriously to refer a case involving another Member to the commissioner so that they can say in their election literature that that Member is under inquiry by the commissioner, in the knowledge that there is insufficient time for the matter to be properly explored. Looking below me down the Gangway, I can see Liberal Democrat Members nodding; they know what I am talking about. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must try to ensure that that does not happen?
Mr. Williams: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I do not exonerate Members of any party from that practice. The tragedy is that Members who have been so self-indulgent have not recognised that they damage not only the Member against whom they make the allegation, but—cumulatively, along with others who are doing the same—the House of Commons by giving the impression that it is sleaze-ridden. In fact, most of the referrals of the past five years did not deal with what would in the past have been described as sleaze.
Whispers are a reality of the House of Commons—that is a systemic problem—and some may be malevolent or malicious. It is a function of the way in which the House works. One has to come in here every day—the Whips make sure of that.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Quite right, too.
Mr. Williams: Well, sometimes we listen to them. Day in, day out, we have to carry on working with friends—

243
or, worse, people who are not friends—who are aware that investigations are going on. It is understandable, if we are locked in here from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night and we want to get something off our chest, that we go and talk to our colleagues. A lot of the so-called whispering is what I would call self-exoneration, or trying to explain things away. Cumulatively, however—because in many cases the exoneration was not endorsed by the Committee—that also damaged the commissioner because it gave, perhaps inadvertently, the impression of unreasonableness.
My next point goes off at a tangent, in a way, but it follows on from my complimenting the Chairman of the Committee. During the fast Parliament, I stood in as Chairman when my parliamentary colleague, now Lord Sheldon, was ill. It is correct that we are now doing in this Committee what we have always done in the Public Accounts Committee. All Committees in this House have a Government majority. In Committees dealing with standards—the PAC deals with standards of financial propriety; this Committee deals with standards of behaviour—and those that deal not with Government matters but with House of Commons matters, it is important that there should be certainty in their independence.
We have always accepted that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee should be a member of the Opposition; that created a good precedent. I hope that that will be sustained by future Governments of whichever party, and that the Chair of the Standards Committee will also always be from the Opposition. That would help to get rid of the nonsensical arguments that arise when unanimous decisions are made in the Committee, yet people in the lobby write, "Government majority on Committee dragoons its members and forces them into decisions."
Peter Bottomley: I want to add a footnote in case any historians look at this. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was no suggestion that Robert Sheldon, who chaired the Committee during the previous Parliament, behaved any differently—although he was a Labour MP—from the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has? The right hon. Gentleman's point about the appearance of greater impartiality is a good one, however.
Mr. Williams: I am not impugning anyone in any way. In this Committee so much depends on perception and on people outside believing in what we do, instead of doubting what we do. I am going to say something now that will offend two of my colleagues—I had not intended to say it—but it is not meant to, because they are excellent members of the Committee. However, in this Committee more than any other, its members have to make a choice. They should either be a Parliamentary Private Secretary and not be on the Committee, or vice versa. This Committee must be as detached as possible in every way from the Executive.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) for saying that, because his legal advice has made an invaluable contribution to the Committee over the last five years, particularly in the last Parliament, when lawyers—I apologise to my hon. and
244
learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) here—did not abound in the Committee as they now do. That expertise was most welcome, and I hope that he will choose to stay on the Committee. However, I think that most hon. Members would understand if he felt that he had to keep one eye on his career prospects. Perhaps the Leader of the House could reassure him that if he made the right decision it would in no way undermine his prospects.
I have spoken for too long already, but this is my final point. As one who has worked as an acting Chairman with the present commissioner, I pay tribute to her assiduity, her determination and her meticulousness. Those qualities were a nuisance if one had something to hide; they ceased to be a nuisance if one had nothing to hide. The qualities she showed in investigating cases were of the highest standard, and I wish her well in whatever job she goes to.
5.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: When I was shadow Leader of the House, I was a member of the House of Commons Commission. I do not want to discuss some of the points that have been raised today in detail; I would prefer to speak in general terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) prayed in aid his experience of employment law and good employment practice in a former life. I too have experience of a former life—my business life, in which I spent a lot of time advising organisations, especially in the corporate sector, on communication.
When, as a member of the Commission, I considered the point that we had reached with the last Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs. Filkin, I decided that the House should do something about one aspect, although it might not be unusual here. The House is not a good employer. We are not good at applying best practice in the way in which we, as MPs, would expect it to be applied in the wider business world. I think the House is now addressing that problem—the Braithwaite report, which was mentioned earlier, was an extremely useful exercise which put us on the right track—but we are not there yet.
In my short experience as a member of the Commission, I concluded that many aspects of communication—both verbal and written—had led us to the situation we are debating today. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Mawer, but it would be unacceptable if we did not learn the lessons and put them into practice pretty rapidly.
The House may recall that I questioned the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) about a proper contract of employment. I think that that is essential. I also think that the rudiments of what we would expect to find in such a contract should be accompanied by an outline, in terms, of the procedures to be followed not just when the Commissioner felt there was a need to apply for more resources, but in the event of a breakdown in communication with the Commission—either directly or through the Speaker—or when outside queries from the media and others must be handled. This is about process, not the definitive role of the commissioner in investigating individual complaints—that being part of the commissioner's remit. I believe that the last commissioner worked without that framework, which is absolutely necessary if communication is to be facilitated at all levels.

245
We have just had a little exchange about the way in which things go wrong when the commissioner speaks to the media—and yes, there have been complaints about a whispering campaign in the House about the last commissioner. There are procedures to resolve such problems immediately, if someone takes the trouble to think the process through and set it down. The problems will arise, owing to the nature of the job and the number of people with an interest—not least the media, who can be quite pernicious in their own pursuit of what the commissioner is up to. If the process for dealing with those problems is not properly structured and set out, and is not part of the employment contract and terms of reference given to the commissioner on appointment—or if there is no procedure for adding it to them—we shall inevitably find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves with Mrs. Filkin. In the end, rightly or wrongly, for a variety of reasons, the commissioner lacked trust in the House and the House lacked trust in the commissioner. As an employer, it is incumbent upon the House to resolve those matters. It is incumbent upon us as employers to ensure through the Commission that we obtain good advice, if that advice is not readily to hand, so that the new commissioner's contract and terms of reference are clearly set out.
The post of commissioner is relatively new. The way in which investigations of Members of Parliament are carried out when a complaint is made is relatively new. In one or two of the more high-profile cases in the previous Parliament, the commissioner perhaps started to investigate areas that she had not investigated before. People started to say, "Is it right that she should look at that aspect of a case and that that should command more resources?" I am not going to say in a judgmental way that it was right or it was not right. All I am saying is that that matter needs to be dealt with. As and when they arise, such issues must be resolved in a timely fashion by either the commissioner or Members of Parliament.
It is a pretty simple procedure; it is not exactly rocket science. Any large organisation in the financial sector would have such a procedure in place and would be able to solve problems as they arose. We have experienced a festering over several years of many issues, all of which deserve to be addressed. However, no one took responsibility to resolve those problems.
A breakdown in communication inevitably results when a situation evolves in that way. We end up with a situation such as we had with Mrs. Filkin. When the contract came up for renewal, it was not immediately clear to many people involved exactly what the procedure was.
Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for at least slightly opening the curtains—
Mrs. Browning: I hope that I am not.
Peter Bottomley: May I put it this way? If there were thought to be problems and if the commissioner and the Commission did not meet, that is a failure of communication on the part of the employer. If the Commission did not consult the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is with the commissioner virtually every week, there would seem to be a slight communication problem, so my hon. Friend is right to say that lessons can be learned.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am shutting the curtains as quickly as I can; it was not my
246
intention to open them. I am sharing an observation with the House as someone who has experienced these problems in another scenario. I could see how the situation had evolved.
One of the difficulties with problem solving is knowing and identifying the problem in the first place, rather than just living with what can become a festering sore, where everyone involved is disgruntled for a variety of reasons but no one takes responsibility for dealing with the situation and for solving problems as they arise.
A proper professional framework needs to be set out so that problems can be avoided in future. It is simply a matter of good practice in the management and employment of people, whether they be a parliamentary commissioner or anyone else for whom we are responsible. The House must raise its game and adopt 21st-century practices in managing its affairs, particularly in relation to employment contracts and the framework that is set out when people are employed, for which we or a Committee have responsibility. It is not acceptable for the situation just to go on and on. Someone must take responsibility.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that the new contract for the new commissioner is confidential. I accept that what is type-written in the contract is confidential, but I hope that it will be comprehensive and that the annexes, if not the main document—I trust that there will be annexes—will cover the proper procedures for problem resolution and for reporting back, setting out who the key people are to approach when these matters arise again, whether it be my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, or whoever. Unless that is written into the new commissioner's contract, we will go through the whole exercise again and the House will be the poorer for it. We must learn the lessons from the employment of Mrs. Filkin.
As a lay person looking in from the outside, there were times after reading the ultimate report when I did not agree with Mrs. Filkin's judgment on individual cases and other times when I did agree, but that is what happens when responsibility is devolved to someone so that they can independently take a detailed look at matters that are reported to them. That is their job. Inevitably, we are not all going to agree or disagree with the outcome of individual reports.
The Braithwaite report has been a wake-up call to the way this establishment is run. As a Parliament, we spend a lot of taxpayers' money and we are responsible for the employment of a great many people at all levels in the House. We must be as professional and as transparent in our dealings with them as we would expect them to be, and as we inevitably expect any business organisation to be outside.
5.46 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Far be it from me to bring disunity to the Chamber, where unity usually reigns on occasions such as this, but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was not quite to my taste. To be honest, I found it unctuous. It bordered on hagiography.
What we need is what we had in Elizabeth Filkin: a rough-hewn character capable of fingering the collar of dodgy people who are self-serving and all too willing to

247
kick up a fuss when the heat is on. As a one-time robust criminal barrister, I admired her style. Instead we will get a member of the great and the good, an establishment figure who will bed himself in as and when he can wind down his many other important activities. Personally, I doubt whether a sophisticated insider and dextrous mandarin who is capable of reading the tea leaves in this place is the sort of person we want.
Moreover, unless I am much mistaken, as that person is a Church Commissioner he must be a member of the Church of England, an organisation of which I was a member before I became an atheist. When I was in the choir, I was told that to be a good member of the Church of England, I had to eschew theology, shut down my moral faculties and demonstrate that the only principle to which I adhered was the lack of a principle. I was told that the Church of England was a Church where doubts very occasionally led to consensus. I am not sure that that is what we want in this case.
Mr. Salmond: Is atheism widespread in the Church of England these days?
Mr. Sedgemore: If I went down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would pull me up, but there was a well known Bishop of Durham who was pretty close to being an atheist.
As regards Elizabeth Filkin, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said. A few weeks ago, I paid a heartfelt, personal tribute to Elizabeth Filkin in an article in Tribune. I shall not go through it because I know that every hon. Member reads my articles in Tribune, but I genuinely believe that she was badly treated by Members of Parliament, and on occasions badly treated by the Committee to which she gave such devoted service and, dare I say it, by the House of Commons Commission itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said that Elizabeth Filkin would not give any evidence, but one would have to live in a time capsule in this place not to know that there was a whispering campaign, which on most occasions developed in front of me into a shouting campaign. All I can say is that, if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough or any member of the House of Commons Commission really believes that there was not a whispering campaign, they would not do so if they had read my article in Tribune, unless they are wholly incapable of understanding the ordinary and natural meaning of simple English words.
Furthermore—I am rather loth to say this, but given some of the stuff that we have heard, I will do so—a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee once described Elizabeth Filkin to me as "mad". Some time later—I remember the day, as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it was the last time that Oxford university played Cambridge university at rugby, and the only redeeming feature of that dreadful match was that Oxford university won—I rushed back here to do my House of Commons duties and a member of that Committee told me that Elizabeth Filkin had left not only a job at the Inland Revenue but a job at the London Docklands development corporation under a cloud. When I asked for more information, I was just told that "they"—
248
the impersonal, unknown and unnamed "they"—were saying it. If that is how a member of the Committee can behave, I apologise to Elizabeth Filkin. I also apologise to her because, until I wrote my article in Tribune three weeks ago, I had not said much on the matter. I am sorry that we—and I—have let Elizabeth down.
5.51 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is a marvellous self-publicist. I hardly dare speak because I must declare an interest as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and as an Anglican who is not an atheist. The hon. Gentleman was having fun in his inimitable way, and I shall not follow him down some of the paths to which he pointed. However, I shall make sure that I get hold of his article in Tribune—doubtless he will send me a copy, which he will autograph, I hope—and I shall read it with great interest over the weekend. Whether I shall read it with much profit is another matter.
I want to take part briefly in this debate, but not because I want to talk about Elizabeth Filkin, whom I did not have the pleasure of knowing. I do not want to say anything detrimental about her; in fact, I am not able to say much about her at all. I am sure that she sought to discharge her duties with assiduity. As for the future, however, we must consider the way in which we appoint our commissioners. There is a lot to be said for appointing a commissioner for one term—perhaps a longer term than the present one—which would not be renewable. That would allow the commissioner to behave without fear or favour in any way.
It would probably be wise, in the light of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), to consider the issue of publicity. Perhaps every commissioner should either make a self-denying ordinance or have imposed on him or her some sort of restriction on speaking to the press about any matter. Officers of the House do not speak to the press as a matter of course and tradition. There is much to be said for that tradition. The Clerk of the House does not give comments to the press whatever advice he may give to the Speaker or anyone else.
What I really want to say stems from my membership of the General Synod. The House would make an exceptionally wise choice if it were to appoint Mr. Philip Mawer and endorse the recommendation made in a speech that was not at all as described by the rumbustious hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—the hon. Gentleman who represents Hackney marshes. I have known Philip Mawer for a long time. I knew him when he was a civil servant, although not well, and I know that he was highly regarded in the roles that he played in the civil service. I have seen him at first hand in the General Synod, and I believe that he has clarity of thought and an analytical mind. I know that he has gentle and self-deprecating good humour. A sense of humour is terribly important in a job like the one that we are considering.
I also know that Philip Mawer has the ability to be impartial. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is the Second Church Estates Commissioner, talked about Church politics. I do not want to say too much about them, but I must point out to the

249
hon. Gentleman who represents Hackney marshes that, if one can cope with Church politics, one can cope with the politics here. Church politics are at least as unscrupulous and devious as anything seen in the House of Commons.
Mr. McNamara: Speak for your own Church.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am talking about the established Church of England of which I am exceptionally proud to be a member. I do not seek to cast aspersions in the direction of Rome.
We must bring a certain humour to our debates. If one can cope, as Philip Mawer has coped, with the General Synod of the Church of England, one can cope with the House of Commons. His work has been remarkable because he has not forfeited the respect of any of the factions or groups—those on the Catholic or evangelical wings, the traditionalists or modernists—but has enhanced his reputation by the way in which he has dealt with them. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows that as well as I do, and I am sure that he would agree entirely with me on that point.
In the time that Mr. Mawer has been at the General Synod, he has been an exceptional public servant of outstanding quality. We are extremely fortunate that he wished to apply for the post and we owe our congratulations to all those—I played no part in this myself—who decided to choose Philip Mawer from what was a distinguished field. He has it within him to be a great servant of the House. I wish him well, and I hope that the House will endorse the recommendation before us.
5.57 pm
Ross Cranston: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the events of recent months had not done the reputation of the House much good. I agree with him. We have not covered ourselves in glory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and others have mentioned the qualities of the retiring commissioner. I have spent a short time on the Standards and Privileges Committee and there can be no doubting her dedication and hard work. The machinery of the independent commissioner reporting to the Committee was very much an innovation when it was established in 1995 and it still seems to be unique among Parliaments in the world. However, as the House of Commons Commission report makes clear, Elizabeth Filkin's work has validated the position of commissioner.
The commissioner's role is a difficult one to carry out. The position was not recommended by the Nolan report, which suggested a separate investigator and adjudicator. When Lord Neill wrote to the Chairman of the Committee a couple of years ago, he said:
"It is a fundamental principle of procedural fairness that the functions of 'investigator' and 'adjudicator' should be carried out independently".
By combining the two roles, we have imposed a heavy burden on the two commissioners who have held the post and we shall impose such a burden on the new appointee. There are various reasons why the concept of an investigating judge has been abandoned in continental countries, but the fact that such judges combine the two roles is one of them.
250
I want to look forward. I congratulate Mr. Mawer on his appointment. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) outlined Mr. Mawer's qualities and my hon. Friend's remarks were endorsed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I am sure that Mr. Mawer will be a splendid appointment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the commissioner's remit, but I want to deal with that point in a slightly different way. I wish to refer to the procedures to which the commissioner should adhere.
The first stage, of course, is the receipt of a complaint. There is no need for me to tell the House that the process is used by political opponents outside to air grievances, and by journalists searching for a story. In a previous debate, I implored hon. Members—including Labour Members—not to use the process simply for political advantage. I associate myself completely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), and with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, on that point. Short-term political benefit can be gained by using the process, but the corrosive effects on the standing of the House are too great a danger in the long run.
Last year, the Standards and Privileges Committee's fifth report contained the assertion that it was a basic courtesy that any hon. Member making a complaint to the commissioner about another hon. Member should send a letter to the hon. Member concerned. Unfortunately, that is still not being done. If it were, it might be some deterrent to hon. Members who want to advance complaints against other hon. Members.
Even if we could choke off political expediency in this place, people outside would still use the process as a pretext to attack hon. Members. Mr. Mawer, the new commissioner, will need to adopt a robust approach to that. He will need to dispose quickly of complaints that are trivial, and of allegations that clearly do not require investigation.
The guide to the rules sets out clearly the rudiments of the process. Complaints must not be anonymous, they must be supported by evidence, and they will not normally be taken up if they are founded simply on a story in the media. If there is evidence, the commissioner has to ask the hon. Member involved to respond, and conduct a preliminary investigation. If there is no prima facie case to answer, that should be the end of the matter.
The present commissioner, Mrs. Filkin, has fleshed out those procedural points in a helpful document attached to the Committee's ninth report. Trivial complaints, or complaints that appear to have nothing to them, must be dealt with quickly and robustly. That calls for strength of character and judgment. From what has been said, it seems that Mr. Mawer has both qualities.
In its sixth report on standards in public life, the Neill committee endorsed an approach that resulted in the commissioner robustly dismissing malicious and frivolous complaints. In addition, it went on to suggest that, when an ill founded complaint receives publicity, the commissioner, with the consent of the hon. Member involved, should publicise his judgment. There is great merit in that suggestion, and I hope that the House will be able to debate the matter at some stage.

251
Once an inquiry begins and the thresholds are met, the commissioner must adhere to certain basic principles. They are derived from common law, and are given added force by article 6 of the European convention. Conveniently, they are also set out in the 1999 report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege under Lord Nicholls.
I shall isolate three of those principles. They are that there must be a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the hon. Member, that there must be an adequate opportunity to take advice, and that there must be an opportunity to be heard.
The first principle is perhaps the most important. There is a great danger that an investigation can go off the rails. It is always possible for an investigator to follow a multitude of lines, to range widely over an hon. Member's affairs, and to stray into matters involving third parties for which an hon. Member has no responsibility—all in the hope that something will turn up. The length of any consequent inquiry can be unfair to the hon. Member concerned, as a cloud remains over his or her head for months.
There is therefore a need for focus, to isolate the important and to discard the trivial. The allegation must then be formulated, and put to the hon. Member involved. In most cases, the aim must be to come quickly to a conclusion. There can be no justification for keeping from the hon. Member the nature of the allegation. There is rarely a justification for keeping from the hon. Member involved the evidence on which an allegation is based.
I come now to the standard of proof that the commissioner, Mr. Mawer, must apply. I do not think that there is any controversy about that now. The Nicholls committee said that the standard was the balance of probabilities, but that a higher standard of proof might be appropriate in serious cases. The first commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey, adopted that approach, although he did not use legal terminology. The approach has now been endorsed by the Committee itself. Cogent evidence is needed to support an allegation. Where reputation is involved, especially cogent evidence is needed in the balance.
I shall say a few words about third parties. People associated with hon. Members will be affected by the commissioner's work. Spouses of MPs, for example, know that MPs have to register some of their property interests. Moreover, the commissioner will sometimes need to interview third parties in the course of an inquiry to obtain information. In the end, however, only hon. Members are answerable to the House, and only they are subject to the mandatory jurisdiction of the commissioner.
The corollary of that is that the commissioner has to be sensitive to the position of third parties. For example, spouses may have their own careers. If they are doctors, lawyers, journalists, business people or whatever, they will have duties towards other people. Such duties could include duties of confidentiality, which would mean that they could not assist the commissioner. It is MPs who have duties to this House, not other people. It seems to me that it will be very rare for the commissioner to make adverse comments—let alone reach adverse findings—about third parties in his reports.
252
In some cases, of course, where documentary evidence is not available, the commissioner may have to rely on oral evidence, which may come from third parties. If the commissioner accepted that evidence, no adverse comment would be made. However, if the commissioner did not accept the evidence of third parties, he could avoid making adverse comments in most cases and simply accept the persuasive evidence.
I believe that it is unnecessary in almost all cases to comment adversely on third parties. After all, the commissioner's report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges is protected by parliamentary privilege. That should not be a cloak for adverse comments on third parties in most cases.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the particular problem that can arise when the hon. Member who is the subject of an investigation decides to bring with him a legal representative? That legal representative may feel that his primary duty is to his client. We have found ourselves in some difficult situations when that has happened.
I was a member of the Joint Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. We found that, when hon. Members come before their colleagues and peers in a Committee with legal representation, that can cause difficult problems. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has considerable legal experience, and perhaps he will be able to comment from both points of view.
Ross Cranston: In most cases, hon. Members will not need to consult lawyers. If an hon. Member answers truthfully the questions put by the commissioner, the case will be disposed of easily, without lawyers. However, as the Joint Committee suggested, hon. Members should have the right to go to lawyers if that is what they want. I do not think that that is necessary in the vast majority of cases, but the right should still exist.
I shall speak briefly about privacy. Hon. Members forfeit much of their privacy when they enter public life. For a start, their financial interests have to be registered, but their behaviour is also a matter for constant scrutiny—by other hon. Members, the press, their constituents and the public in general. Anonymity goes by the board in much of their daily lives, but hon. Members should still be entitled to what I would call a zone of privacy, as long as they do not forfeit that right through their behaviour.
Matters that are not relevant to hon. Members' performance in the job include their family, their relationships with parents, their partners and children, their sexual predilections, and—a theme that arose earlier in the debate—their religious beliefs. Hon. Members are entitled to privacy in those and related matters, unless, as I said, they put those matters into the public arena.
Mr. Mawer must respect that zone of privacy. Members are under a duty to co-operate with him: they must answer his questions and provide him with information. The other side of the coin is that the commissioner must respect a Member's privacy. In most instances, of course, this issue is subsumed by my earlier point about relevance. Rarely will those aspects of the zone of privacy, as I have described it, be relevant to an inquiry. Even if they were, the commissioner should hesitate before intruding.
There have been various references to the press. As I have been provoked into saying something about this, my advice to the commissioner would be "Don't talk to

253
the press." My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire took that line. There is no need for the commissioner to confirm or deny that an inquiry is under way. Contacts with the press could lead to allegations of leaking and manipulation. My advice to Mr. Mawer would be "Don't talk to the press. Ultimately, if there is a report, what you say will be public. You stand or fall by that report."
On the statute of limitations, the first commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey, in his valedictory report, said:
"I think there is a risk of a `tit-for-tat' war breaking out in which Members search old records and debates for evidence of possible rule breaches."
He suggested having a seven-year cut-off point. That was endorsed by the Committee in its 19th report, subject to the proviso that the commissioner should be able to go back beyond that point, after consulting the Committee in serious cases. Mr. Mawer should use that seven-year period of limitations. Sir Gordon also alluded to the trawling through of reports and associated documents to launch fresh complaints. As well as a statute of limitations, Mr. Mawer should adopt a fresh evidence rule. It would mean that, if evidence was available at the time of the original inquiry, it should not be used to found a new inquiry.
Too often we fail to recognise how fortunate we are in our public servants. Few countries can match ours in the dedication and integrity of its public servants and the skill and independence of its judiciary. That is not an excuse for complacency; it is not a defence of the status quo. We cannot take our reputation in this House for granted. That is why there is a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the new commissioner. But in our public life there is virtually no major misconduct, and we should be very proud of that.
6.13 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). I thought that some of his structural points about the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards were very important, although he is totally unrealistic in his view of what is possible with the press.
I agree with the hon. Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick), for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in their analysis of the situation. Some other Members are in a state of denial about what has happened. The House of Commons has, collectively, engaged in the political assassination of its Standards Commissioner—that is what she believes has happened; she believes she has been undermined. She believes that she was a turbulent Standards Commissioner who was got rid of. What is more, the overwhelming majority of the public believe that Elizabeth Filkin is to be no more because she was ferreting out things without fear or favour. Right hon. or hon. Members, on the Front or Back Benches, who do not appreciate how that adds to the cynicism about politics are living in a different political world from me. There is a seam of discontent about the events of the past few months, which may not be widespread in this place because many Members, to their discredit, take very little interest in this.
At business questions, the Leader of the House is fond of dismissing the number of signatories—49—to the early-day motion that the hon. Member for Worthing,
254
West tabled expressing confidence in Mrs. Filkin. Thirty Labour Members of Parliament signed it, as did five Conservatives, nine Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members, three Liberal Democrats, one independent and one Member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. It did not include the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, so I suspect that the list is not exclusive. Those Members and others feel a deep discontent and anxiety about what has happened to the present Standards Commissioner.
I have never met Elizabeth Filkin; I have never phoned her, had a postcard or sent her a letter. That is probably the best position to be in—it may even be a fortunate position, all things considered, because I have no axe to grind. However, I have read her reports, which have been meticulous and closely argued. They seem to be properly based and I have detected no political axe-grinding in them. Why, given the excellence with which the representative of the House of Commons Commission told us that she had conducted affairs, has it come to pass that she has, in effect, been constructively dismissed? That is what has happened to one of our employees. Members talk in employment debates about employees' rights, legal protection and European statutes, yet one of our most important employees—the one with the most difficult job of all in regulating us—has been undermined in a despicable fashion.
Structural points might lead to such a situation, almost regardless of who is in post; indeed, the better the person employed, the more likely they are to lead to that situation. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch obviously knows Elizabeth Filkin much better than I do. I liked his description of her as being prepared to search for the truth without fear or favour, no matter whose toes she trampled on. Surely that is exactly the sort of person we want in the job.
We have a hybrid system that cannot work. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North referred to separating the investigative role from the adjudication role. We have lumped the two roles together. We then have a second-guess system of self-regulation in the Committee on Standards and Privileges and, possibly, a third-guess system on the Floor of the House.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has issued a report in which she upholds, in meticulous detail, four complaints against a current Minister of the Crown. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has decided today, in six brief paragraphs, to take no action. I do not think that a system in which we appoint an independent Standards Commissioner, or at least one who is meant to be independent and then have a second-guess system of self-regulation, can possibly be sustained. We must go for one or the other. We can adopt an independent system of regulation with a Standards Commissioner reporting, perhaps, to the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When that idea was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Leader of the House gave one of his characteristic scoffs. Independent regulation would mean having someone who was genuinely independent and responsible outwith the procedures and processes of this House. If we want self-regulation, we had better understand that it will always be open to the accusation that the Committee matches the make-up of the House, and some people will believe, rightly or wrongly—but, given the events of last

255
few months, probably rightly—that certain people will receive different treatment from certain other people. That will be the perception.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: If one party has been running the show, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that every report has been unanimous?
Mr. Salmond: That is not the point I was making, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West, a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, helpfully points out from a sedentary position. We have a system of self-regulation under which the Committee, like all others in this place, is appointed by the usual channels. That leads to the perception that the system of self-regulation is subject to political influences. All these people, regardless of how honourable they are and how diligently they carry out their duties, are none the less politicians regulating other politicians. It is impossible for people wholly to remove themselves from the political process when they are active politicians. In an earlier speech, we were told of an unguarded remark made by a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I do not know whether that is true, but I trust the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. That example shows exactly the failings of any system of self-regulation. Most such systems—wherever in public life they may be—are open to challenge; they are certainly open to considerable scepticism.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made an excellent point about tenure: whoever is appointed, under whatever system, should be appointed for one term only. I suggest that a term of 10 years would be appropriate. There should be no question of reappointment. There would thus be no pressure to reappoint—whether such pressure is perceived or real.
The person should be released from the post due only to complete incompetence or—
Peter Bottomley: Death.
Mr. Salmond: Indeed. Death or taxes: that should be the only way out of the post. Whoever is appointed should be wholly free from any pressure—real or apparent—to obtain a second term, to which they may be subjected or which is suggested by their employers. The confusion over whether the commissioner was being offered a three-day or a five-day week or whether she was to be paid for work that she had done—when someone has, in effect, to apply to get her own job back although there is no good reason for her not to be reappointed—shows how unsatisfactory the position is. A one-term appointment would free the commissioner from any possible pressure.
If the House of Commons Commission and the commissioner continue with their present responsibilities, surely the Speaker should not continue as Chair of the Commission. Some of us have greatly admired the Speaker's independence and the strength of his rulings recently. We believe that he requires support throughout the House—especially from Back Benchers—to uphold those rulings. However, we find ourselves in difficulty in this debate. We are in a debate with the House of
256
Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker whom we greatly admire but who cannot take part in the debate. It seems completely wrong that the Commission is not properly answerable to the House—through the Chairman or whoever—on decisions that the Commission has or has not made.
I repeat that it is disgraceful that the first real opportunity that we have had to debate what happened to our current commissioner is during our discussion of the appointment of the next standards commissioner. If there were valid complaints about the way in which Mrs. Filkin conducted her duties, they should have been brought to the Floor of the House through the Commission and debated in the open—in the light; they should not have been the subject of a whispering campaign in the dark, demeaning her character and abilities.
I have no knowledge either of Mrs. Filkin or of Mr. Mawer. I am sure that he is a true believer of the Church of England—unlike other people whose views may be more transitional. I am told that the rough house of Church of England politics will have prepared him for his role as Standards Commissioner. I must accept that.
However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch: Mr. Mawer will suffer from two big disadvantages. The first is that he will be seen as an establishment candidate—as one of the chaps who knows the game and has been brought in as a contrast to his predecessor, who was outside the establishment and thus extremely difficult. Secondly, the circumstances in which Mr. Mawer's predecessor fell will surely overshadow his ability to do his job.
I wish the new commissioner well. I hope that he does well, but he arrives in especially difficult circumstances and, unless they are properly addressed, the same situation may be replayed time after time. If someone does the job too conscientiously, it will seem that they were got rid of because they were inconvenient to people in this place.
I have one more point about the Commission. When hon. Members have raised this issue at business questions—especially the hon. Member for Worthing, West, but also other hon. Members—they have been barracked by the shadow Leader of the House. I have never seen such strength of solidarity and support—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House does not seem to agree. There is something unhealthy about a political system where the Members of the Front Benches were so arm in arm—the Liberals were not much better—about getting rid of that independent regulator—[Interruption.] I certainly was not part of that cosy conspiracy at the Dispatch Box—thank goodness for that.
In summary, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin has, to use an old-fashioned term, been wronged by this House. Those who did that wrong should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of what they did, but especially of the manner in which they did it. They acted behind the scenes, behind the Chair and in the dark—rather than in full debate and in the light, where the real issues could be addressed.
6.25 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I became a Member of the House nearly five years ago and was enormously honoured to be made a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee almost immediately.
I entered the House with a perception that the whole place was sleaze-ridden. I thought that one had to keep one's hands in one's pocket and to keep hold of one's

257
wallet, whereas in fact this is an amazingly honest place. Across the board, the politicians whom I meet are extremely honest, but very occasionally some of them break the rules.
At present—after the three years during which our commissioner has been in place—people believe that this place is more sleaze-ridden than ever; yet during the past few years, there has been no money in brown envelopes. We have not experienced the problems that occurred in the past. There has been no cash for questions. Certainly, there have been some breaches of the regulations—often technical breaches. In relation to our earlier debate, it is worth noting that both the two substantial offences of which my hon. Friend Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was found guilty—among the 11 with which he was charged—involved regulatory issues that occurred many years ago. That was all. There were, of course, serious matters and the House took the right decision about what should happen to that Member.
However, those issues were not sleaze—at least not according to my definition. My definition of sleaze is when one uses one's public office for private gain. If any hon. Member can think of an example of that during the past few years I should be interested to hear it, because there have been no such cases. The behaviour of hon. Members has indeed been honourable. That is why I am so sad that, as I enter my second term as a Member, my constituents—like those of many hon. Members—believe that we are not honourable and honest. That upsets me.
It upsets me when a public servant gives the impression that we are not honest and honourable. That is why I do not support the reappointment of Elizabeth Filkin. It is not because she lacks integrity: she is one of the women of the greatest integrity whom I have ever met. She is indeed a woman of independence—there is no doubt about that—but the job of the Standards Commissioner is to instil confidence about the House here and in the outside world as well: the outside world must be confident that the commissioner is doing a good job and Members must be confident that they are being treated fairly. If they do not believe that, they will not co-operate with the system. That is the nub of the matter.
Under Sir Gordon Downey, there was no such criticism as we have heard recently. During the first two years of my membership of the Committee, there were differences of opinion with Sir Gordon on some occasions, but the Committee did not disagree with the logic of the commissioner's reports as often as it has done in recent years. That disagreement is regarded as a debit for the Committee, but if the current system is to operate it is surely right that the Committee should not second-guess the arguments and evidence against Members; it should analyse them and consider them judicially.
Let us consider the report that was published this morning in which—as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out—the Committee, yet again, took a different view from the commissioner. The House should study that report and read what the commissioner said. She said that people should account for money that had been properly paid to them—thus, if someone charged a rent, the cash they received would be an improper use of public funds. That so defeats logic that one understands why some Members get upset.
I repeat that I do not doubt Mrs. Filkin's integrity, but I do question her judgment and ability to meet the evidential requirements and thus to reach fair decisions
258
in many cases. With that in mind, the Commission was absolutely right to see whether we could do better. The decision was no more than that. It was not an unfair dismissal, but a decision not to reappoint someone to a post with a fixed-term contract. I have some experience of employment law and, assuming that the contract contained such a provision, failure to reappoint would not constitute unfair or constructive dismissal. None of us has seen that contract, so none of us knows the answer to that question, but that is another issue.
In discussing Mrs. Filkin, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) suggested that we should have a grievance procedure. Happily, we will have such a procedure, because the Employment Bill that the House passed last night provides that it be included in employment contracts as an implied term. Unhappily, the Opposition opposed it, even so, it is an important procedure that should be not merely implied but expressed in the new commissioner's contract. That would avoid many of the problems that we have experienced.
Sir Gordon Downey said just a week or two ago that the behaviour of Members in respect of their interests has improved enormously in the past three or four years. I agree, but I would extend that to the past five years. Why, therefore, does the perception of sleaze and wrongdoing remain? One reason—I am sorry to repeat the point—is the commissioner's readiness in the past three years to take on complaints of little substance.
Of course, we are also at fault, because most complaints are brought by Members against other Members not for quasi-judicial reasons but for political purposes. That is wrong, and when such complaints are found to be spurious, Members should be shown the red card for falsely complaining, rather like soccer players who throw themselves to the ground in the penalty area. There should be some form of sanction when wholly unjustified complaints are made. Having said that, we do not want to discourage people from bringing proper complaints. It is a difficult line to draw.
I agree with those Members who said that self-regulation is a difficult issue, because I am not at all sure that we can ever be trusted by the public. People do not trust us to look after our own affairs.
Moreover, the Select Committee process is perhaps not the best method of self-regulation or any other form of regulation. Although the Select Committee is skilfully managed by a distinguished Chairman, such Committees are an inappropriate substitute for a judicial body. The media will always think ill of Members of Parliament, which is a cross that we must bear. When the commissioner presents a report, it becomes public property, and nothing that the House or its Committees subsequently say is of much value. The press pick up on the commissioner's comments, rather than ours, because they want to think ill of us.
The Select Committee process is the problem. Select Committees' main objective is to reach unanimity, but unanimity is not always justice. They compromise and fudge—in one direction or another—and look for a middle way that is acceptable to everybody, but that does not always mete out justice to a given Member. For that reason, I am not at all certain that that is the best way to proceed.
If we are to proceed with the current system, if we are to look after our own affairs and if we are to instil confidence not only in the public but in Members so that

259
they co-operate and so that there is no repeat of this afternoon's tragedy whereby someone took against the investigator and behaved so wrongly that we had to reach such a decision, we must consider the rules. We need procedural rules that are unambiguous and certain, which, perhaps, is our next task. I agree absolutely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who clearly set out many of the requirements for achieving that objective.
In a nutshell, if we are to operate such a system, allegations must be clearly put, including references to the alleged breach of rules—not simply a letter setting out some generality, but the actual fact and the actual breach, rather like a charge sheet for a Member. That is what is required.
Members must thus be given the evidence on which a complaint is presented so that they can challenge or agree to it as the case may be. They must always have the last word—the opportunity to answer the charge—but I fear that that has not happened over recent years. There has been a fudge, with suggestions being made and considered, and new charges arising part way through the process.
That is not justice. If we want to achieve justice, not only for society, which is most important, but for Members, we must acknowledge that they have rights too. I believe and very much hope that the new commissioner will help us to achieve that objective.
6.36 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of our Committee, who has been extremely skilful in difficult circumstances. I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who made most of the points that I wanted to make, but far more eloquently and succinctly than I could. As a result, I shall not keep the House until 10 o'clock, or even later—a motion would allow us to continue beyond that hour—but I must make a number of points.
First, there is a misapprehension in the House and, I believe, in the media, over the way in which the system works. The commissioner's report goes to the Committee, but it is the Committee's report that matters to the House. Hon. Members can obviously read the commissioner's report and then decide whether they think the Committee's report is proper, accurate and fair, but we discuss our report and our decision. That ought to be borne in mind.
People do not understand the process properly, and I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). I do not believe that natural justice was in some way overthrown in the case to which he referred—not at all. In fact, my opinion remains that the commissioner and the Committee bent over backwards to ensure that our hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had every opportunity to present his case, produce his solicitors and have opinions from learned counsel. The Shakespearean tragedy of all this is that the person who hanged himself today is my hon. Friend, by virtue of his conduct.
As has been rightly said, of 11 charges, eight were not upheld, two were minor and one represented a slap on the wrist. However, my hon. Friend's attitude, partly to the
260
commissioner, but mostly regarding alleged telephone calls, caused his downfall. I urge colleagues to read the whole report very carefully, if they have time. If they do not, they should read the section on Mapesbury Communications—a company established for the benefit of our colleague of which his mother-in-law and then his mother were secretary. The sole director was his wife. Moneys were used to buy a car for his mother, as company secretary.
Our hon. Friend said that he knew nothing of the workings of that company, and the Committee said, with all charity, that that was a little odd. However, we upheld what the commissioner said because all the evidence on which we could have pursued that matter further had mysteriously disappeared. The charge could not be upheld for lack of evidence, not because there was no trail to follow, as has perhaps been suggested. The trail went cold for lack of evidence.
On the telephone calls, I refer colleagues to the appendix, which contains the full text of the letter from the chief inspector of Leicestershire police. The report contains only part of that letter, which states the serious charges that the police considered they might bring against my hon. Friend. They then decided that he was seeking to undermine our system and therefore that it should be left to us to decide what should happen to him. The charges were very serious indeed.
Although I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North said about third parties, the Committee was scrupulous with regard to third parties in that report. We dealt only with our colleague, not with other individuals about whom we might have formed opinions that we decided not to express. We were dealing with our colleague, not with the third parties. Sometimes, colleagues can drag in third parties in all sorts of ways and their reputations have to be defended—we had to defend some third parties in our report. This is a serious matter. It was most unpleasant sitting in judgment on a colleague.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that he felt the commissioner had been badly treated by the Committee. I have served on the Committee in only this Parliament, and I must say that there were differences of opinion, but there was respect for the commissioner and an understanding of her position in arguing points and reaching decisions. Different conclusions were reached without blazing rows or anything of that nature, and we carefully explained why we disagreed. That is precisely how we reached decisions.
David Winnick: From my hon. Friend's experience of serving on the Committee—limited though it is—does he think that our hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is in any way correct to suggest that the parliamentary commissioner should lose her job because she has been over-zealous? In his experience, has the parliamentary commissioner done anything that a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should not have done?
Mr. McNamara: I shall come to that in a moment. I shall refer to the allegation that the parliamentary commissioner was badly treated by the Committee, and I shall deal with my attitude towards Mrs. Filkin. I found

261
her to be intellectually hard and very careful in her use of words. She bent over backwards to be fair and to give the benefit of the doubt when she could. In fact, the Committee felt that she had not been hard enough on one occasion, and we reconsidered the evidence on one of the accusations. We upheld her decision not to proceed further on that matter. That is an example of the Committee disagreeing with the commissioner. I found her tough, intellectual and uncompromising in terms of what she felt her proper role involved. The way that the rules were laid down may be criticised, but I felt that she was absolutely straight and upright in upholding them. I found no reason why we should throw stones at her.
On the points that other colleagues have made, when some people knew that I had been appointed to the Committee, they muttered, "Oh, that Filkin woman." How much of that was deliberately stirred up by colleagues who were subject to her inquiries only they know. Some of them may feel that, in some way or another, they have obtained a victory in her dismissal. If they think that, I feel sad for them because they have let down the House of Commons.
The parliamentary commissioner had an almost impossible job—she had to police the standards and ensure that they were upheld by some of the most self-opinionated people in the country, barring only the members of the senior judiciary. I thought that she carried out her task remarkably well, but I know that there were those mutterings and explosions. Some colleagues said that other colleagues were badly treated when they had not even read the reports or looked at the evidence on which the decisions were made. That is a criticism of us, not of the commissioner. I hope that her new job is as challenging, but that she has more support and understanding than she has achieved here.
I want to turn to the role of the House of Commons Commission. It did not completely follow the rules on establishing such posts, as laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and it came in late. Only later did the Commission involve the Chairman of the Committee. Although I accept that all hon. Members are equal in such matters, we, as members of the Committee, are more closely and intimately affected than others. However, at no time did the Commission officially—or even unofficially, so far as I know—approach the Committee to ask for our impression of the way in which the parliamentary commissioner was undertaking her role. Given what has been said this evening, hon. Members know that opinions would have differed. The least that the Commission could have done was to approach the Committee and ask, "What do you think of the commissioner's behaviour?" That was not done, and that important matter has to be examined by the Commission in future.
The fact that the Committee was not shown two audited reports on the work of the commissioner and her office—even now it has not been shown those reports—delayed things until after the recommendation to appoint the new commissioner and the virtual dismissal of the current one. The Commission behaved disgracefully in not letting the Committee know what was going on and what the problems were. I presume that it did not want us to see those reports because they showed that the commissioner was overworked and doing a good job, as were her staff. That is absolutely disgraceful.
262
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) referred to tenure. One of the tasks that the House has given me is membership of our delegation to the Council of Europe. I am the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee—European matters are all very complicated—that recommends to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe whom we think it should elect, from a list of three people submitted by countries, to be a member of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. It is in some ways one of the most onerous jobs that I have had in my life. Although those judges were originally part-time, they were appointed for a nine-year term. With the reorganisation of the court a few years ago, they were appointed for fixed terms. Under the new system, half of them, chosen by lot, will retire after three years to be replaced by others for successive six-year terms.
That system seems extremely fair, but we found some shortcomings. First, we found that in some cases, sitting judges were not reappointed, or not included on their country's shortlist, for a variety of reasons. It might have been for political reasons, because they had given or supported judgments that the home country did not like, or because their face did not fit, although they were competent judges. There was interference in that way, as there might have been on the matter that we are discussing tonight.
Secondly, we noted that some of the judges who were coming up for re-selection found it necessary to spend time at home, ensuring that their colleagues there appreciated the need for them to be on the bench in Strasbourg. To many people with judicial minds—like politicians' minds—what happened yesterday is quickly forgotten, and the judges had to remind their colleagues of who they were and why they were there.
The system was unsatisfactory. There were threats to the independence of the judges. Judges were in danger of corrupting themselves in the way that they went about seeking re-selection, and the factors influencing re-selection meant that the system did not work efficiently, which was a problem.
We shall be in a much better position if we appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for a period of, let us say, nine or 10 years, knowing that they will not be reappointed at the end of the term, knowing that they will be independent, and knowing that the means exist to get rid of them if they shoot their wife or run off with the Treasury—lalthough they will not get away with much gold if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps going on in the way that he is. In other words, the commissioner could be got rid of for malfeasance, but not for making unpopular judgments or for ruffling the defendant. We would be in a much better position if we adopted that arrangement; for starters, we would not have debates such as this so frequently.
If we take that course, we shall know when the commissioner is due to leave office, and we should be able to appoint a new one well enough in advance to enable them to learn the ropes before assuming the post. At present, the newly appointed commissioner is supposed to attend for perhaps one day a week for the first month, and after that perhaps two days a week, then perhaps three days a week and then—if he finds the job as difficult as it is—four or five days a week. However, given the work load that the Audit Commission found,

263
it is nonsensical to appoint someone who has to wind up his present contract, fine, splendid, pure, upright and hardworking as the man is. I do not know the gentleman and I wish him well in his job, but I believe that we could think about some of these matters more seriously.
I shall now mention legal advice. I sometimes wonder to what degree legal advice and opinions from learned counsel are introduced deliberately to waste time—to produce red herrings or further matters to be investigated, just in case the Committee could be accused of being unfair. Colleagues obviously must have that right but, in their own interests, it should be used sparingly.
Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that we should advise people to look at the report that was published today, in which the Member facing a complaint spoke to the commissioner and sorted things out? The commissioner thought that there was no need to go any further. There were further complaints; they were looked at. A report came to the Committee. I would argue that the Committee, by my reading—it is an agreed report, although what it says may not be agreed—agreed with the commissioner, in a sense, on three of the main issues, but also agreed that no further action was needed. In that case, legal advice did not come in. The whole process took very little time. It has been fair and open, and that surely is the best advice to others.
Mr. McNamara: Oh yes. I agree with that entirely.
The last point that I want to address is the strange description of "rough-hewn", which I think was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney—
Mr. Sedgemore: Hackney marshes.
Mr. McNamara: I must say that I found that rather a strange phrase to use about the elegant commissioner that we have at present. If it meant that she was tough-minded and would stand no nonsense, I would accept that, but I always found her—in my dealings with her and from observing her with other members of the Committee—ever courteous, ever helpful, ever prepared to listen, and ever ready to argue her point, but willing to concede gracefully when the Committee decided differently.
6.55 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I declare an interest, in that I was for some time a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I am a member of the House of Commons Commission and I was a member of the board that conducted the preliminary interviews for the position that the House is considering. In that sense, I am in this up to my eyeballs. The House should be aware of that, and can take account of it in respect of anything that I might now say.
Having said that, I have no hesitation in recommending Mr. Philip Mawer to the House because I had the privilege of being involved in interviewing him, among many other people of very high quality, not just once but twice. My view was—happily, this was the way that events turned out—that he was the best qualified of a very high-quality field of candidates.
264
It partly answers some of what was said in the debate that, when the post was advertised, there was no lack of high-quality applicants who, although they knew the context, still came forward because they felt that the role was challenging and demanding, because they had a sense of duty and because they wanted to play their part in maintaining the reputation of the parliamentary process and of the House. The House can therefore feel confident that this candidate will serve it extremely well if, as I hope, we agree to his appointment.
However, we must recognize—it was made clear to Mr. Mawer, as it was to the other candidates—that the position of commissioner is not an easy one, as became patently obvious during the debate. There has been no attempt to conceal it. We all know, not least from the debate, that the commissioner has to maintain a relationship with the Standards and Privileges Committee, of course; with the House of Commons Commission, although that relationship is, of necessity and rightly, much diminished after the appointment; with Mr. Speaker, of course, because of his position in the House; and with the Clerk of the House under some circumstances. I addition to all that, the commissioner must have a relationship with 655 Members of Parliament.
Peter Bottomley: What about the other four?
Mr. Forth: I thought that some clever colleague would ask me about the other four. I deliberately excluded Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. Strictly speaking, I perhaps should not have but I would be crazy not to in this circumstance. My point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that maintaining a relationship with the entirety of the membership of the House is a key part of the job and responsibility of the commissioner, and one of the most difficult parts. It is on that ground, among others, that we must satisfy ourselves. Worse, the commissioner then has to maintain independence and integrity and at the same time be a servant of the House. That is a very difficult duty to maintain with credibility.
I am confident, however, that Mr. Philip Mawer has the experience and the capability to fulfil those very demanding requirements and maintain the confidence of Members and the public at large. I believe that he is fully capable of doing so and I commend him to the House.
6.59 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The House will be aware that I have put my name to the motion. At the risk of scandalising the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I fully support what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in commending Mr. Mawer.
The House was fortunate to have a good field of candidates for the post. When it was advertised, some members of the press said that no one of calibre would apply. Indeed, one feature writer who said that himself went on to apply. The press were wholly wrong, as they so often are. The candidates were drawn from a wide field. I think that I speak for the Commission when I say that any of the three on the final short list could do the job with distinction and success. It is an even greater tribute to Mr. Mawer that he was successful in such a strong field.
It is also a tribute to Mr. Mawer that no hon. Member who regretted the departure of Mrs. Filkin expressed regret at the arrival of Philip Mawer. The hon. Member

265
for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) spoke highly of him. On that point at least we can agree. I cannot promise to rise to the hagiography that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) accorded Mrs. Filkin, but Mr. Mawer certainly has the qualities of integrity, impartiality, tenacity and discretion that are needed for the job.
I defer to my hon. Friend for his superior knowledge of the Church of England, but from my study of 19th century literature I believe that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is correct in saying that the Church is not without politics and intrigue. Handling the senior post that Mr. Mawer occupied must have required tact, skill and toughness. He also served with distinction at the Home Office where he undertook tough and demanding tasks, such as acting as the secretary and writer of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots. I am confident that he brings to the post the qualities that we need and experience that has prepared him for the role of commissioner.
It is important to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said: the process of appointment was scrupulous. In the early stages, we sought the advice and support of one of my predecessors, Lord Newton, and Sir Gordon Downey, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Throughout all stages of the process, we were observed by an independent assessor, Mrs. Sheila Drew-Smith, who was appointed by the Commission for Public Appointments. She also attended the final hearing, at the end of which she said—I wrote down her comment—that the process had been as robust as we can make it. The Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee joined us as a full voting member when we made the final choice from the shortlist of three, and he fully supported our choice at the end of the hearing. No matter what other opinions hon. Members may have, it is not possible to fault the process by which we produced the man who I believe is an excellent candidate for the post.
The arrival of the new commissioner is an opportunity for us all to look to the future of the system and the way in which the post's duties are carried out.
Mr. Salmond: No one suggested that the process of appointment of the new commissioner was not scrupulous. Some hon. Members suggested, however, that the effective removal of the previous commissioner was less than scrupulous. Having heard the views expressed in the debate, does the Leader of the House regret anything that he has or has not done as part of his role in the House of Commons Commission in the past few months, given the circumstances under which Elizabeth Filkin left office?
Mr. Cook: Not in the slightest. I have done nothing of which to be ashamed, nothing that I am not prepared to defend, and nothing that I have any cause to regret. I believe that Mr. Mawer will command the confidence of the House. In a year or two, we will look back on what we did tonight and regard it as the correct decision.
David Winnick: Would it not have been better for the House of Commons Commission to initiate a debate on why Elizabeth Filkin was not to have her contract renewed? This debate is about the new appointment, and
266
we all wish Mr. Mawer well, but many of us are clearly unhappy about the way in which Mrs. Filkin is leaving our service.
Mr. Cook: Let us be clear about this: Mrs. Filkin is leaving our service because she chose not to put herself forward in open competition for the post. Throughout the process, I have been careful to ensure that my appreciation of her qualities is placed on the record. It is strange that those who purport to be her champions are the ones who keep pressing for a debate to explore her merits for the post. I am content to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said. I commend Mrs. Filkin for her assiduity, determination and meticulousness and, with those words, the House should draw a line under the matter.
There are aspects of the system that the House should consider for the future, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). Hon. Members require protection against the malicious representation of them being under investigation even when there is nothing of substance to investigate. Their reputation is important not just to their political careers, but to their standing in their community. We must not expose them to the meretricious publicity of being under investigation when no inquiry has been launched or is likely to produce a substantial result.
As Leader of the House, I would welcome the Standards and Privileges Committee's considering how to give greater clarity to the distinction between a complaint having been made and an investigation having been launched. I was much attracted to the formula that Sir Gordon Downey articulated on the radio last year. He said that he never initiated an investigation until he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to be answered. Until we reach that stage, all Members are entitled to privacy and protection against fabricated claims that they are under investigation because of complaints without substance.
Peter Bottomley: One of the advantages of the system that the House instituted by establishing the commissioner and the Standards and Privileges Committee is that we can now take matters further. Newspaper used to attack a Member who had no way in which to get the claim investigated. We should remember that such a case would have received publicity anyway. Having a commissioner who looks into an allegation and who does not take an investigation further gives a Member greater protection than not having the system at all.
Mr. Cook: I am not suggesting that we dismantle the system, but we should protect ourselves against malicious complaints that result in headlines that a Member is under investigation. We can protect ourselves against that without dismantling the system.
Our system of self-regulation has been criticised. It is important that we restore public faith and confidence in it. Today we accepted a report by the Standards and Privileges Committee. We debated the report promptly and expeditiously, and its findings were accepted unanimously. The vigour, severity and unanimity with which we carry through the process of self-regulation compares favourably with other cases of self-regulation.

267
We are more likely to pursue our self-regulation with greater rigour and with the unanimous support of our Members than, possibly, the press do with the Press Complaints Commission.
This is Ash Wednesday and an appropriate day on which to approach the debate in a spirit of penitence and critical self-examination. It is vital that we have robust and frank procedures to call to account those Members who let down the standards of the House. We also should ensure that we and, if possible, the press retain a sense of proportion. As Leader of the House, I am distressed that the occasional lapse by a few Members is sometimes written up as if it is representative of the House as a whole. That is false. Most complaints to the Standards and Privileges Committee are not upheld. Most hon. Members come to the House with a genuine commitment to serve their constituents and their political beliefs. Some of those beliefs are entirely wrong-headed, but I respect the sincerity and integrity with which all hon. Members bring their beliefs and commitment to the House. In my view, the House is as clean as any other representative parliamentary democracy. We should not be ashamed of saying so and should take every possible step to ensure that our systems advertise that to our public, our constituents and even to our press. That is why it is of the greatest importance that we have in place mechanisms to maintain our standards and enforce our code of conduct.
I believe that Mr. Mawer will win the confidence of the House for his discretion. Even more important, I believe that he will win the confidence of the public that he will conduct his job with vigour and without fear of, or favour to, any Member. Since becoming Leader, I have frequently said to the House that I believe in the scrutiny of Government because good scrutiny makes for good Government. I believe also that good scrutiny of standards makes for a good Parliament. I believe that Mr. Mawer will be a good scrutineer, and in that spirit I commend him to the House.
7.10 pm
Mr. Bell: I should like to make a few points about the debate.
First, I want to answer a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about Elizabeth Filkin's extra day's work. I have been informed by the Director of Finance and Administration that arrangements have been made to pay Mrs. Filkin for all the days that she has worked and for annual leave that she has not taken. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's question.
It seems a long time since we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). He said that he thought that Sir Nigel Wicks and his committee ought to review the commissioner's role or his appointment. We welcome any inquiries made by Sir Nigel Wicks and his review of the procedures of the House. I simply add that the House is master and mistress of its own affairs, and it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to alter the present status.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the duties that the new nominee will have if he is appointed. He spoke of linesmen and referees. I simply say that if Mr. Mawer is appointed by the House tonight, he expects to begin work
268
from the beginning of March. Initially, this will be for one or two days a week, since the House will understand that it will take him a little while to relinquish all his present responsibilities, but he will increase his commitment as quickly as he can. Strictly speaking, Mr. Mawer should have given six months' notice to the Church of England, but recognising the importance of this role, the Church is allowing him to leave sooner. Mr. Mawer therefore expects to work up to three days a week by May. He has said:
"I will do what the job requires and adjust my working life accordingly".
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made a very eloquent declaration of the merits and qualities of Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin. I have to repeat what has been said by other members of the Commission and by right hon. and hon. Members of the House: the Commission has valued Mrs. Filkin's work and regrets that she did not take the opportunity to apply to be considered for a second term. The nomination report records the Commission's appreciation
"of Ms Filkin's dedication to the work of the House"
and notes:
"She has successfully brought a number of complex inquiries to a conclusion."
We also believe that her work has validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation established following the recommendations of the first Nolan report.
Much has been made of the press and its contacts and relationships. The new commissioner, like all Officers of the House and like his predecessor, is subject to a general requirement to maintain confidentiality. Given the nature of the position, the commissioner will need to agree with the Standards and Privileges Committee what contact he has with the media, but there is no question whatsoever of gagging Mr. Mawer. Indeed, should the House approve his appointment today, I am sure that he would be ready to talk to the press tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) made an interesting, intriguing and delightful speech, as always. I can only paraphrase Voltaire and say that I do not agree with what he said, but I would defend to the death his right to say it. The Commission and the House welcome his warm words for Philip Mawer in his early-day motion. I have read in the press—it may be malicious gossip—that the hon. Gentleman intends to resign from the Standards and Privileges Committee. I can only give him the advice of Lord Beaverbrook: "Never resign. Wait until you're sacked." Since no one is likely to sack the hon. Gentleman from that role, I urge him to stay where he is and to give Philip Mawer positive advice. I know that Mr. Mawer would welcome that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who was a member of the Commission for some time, as she said, asked about the accountability of the commissioner. The Speaker and the Clerk of the House will have general management and oversight of the commissioner, but under Standing Order No. 149, it is for the Standards and Privileges Committee to oversee the commissioner's work. No doubt that role will fall on the gentleman sitting next to her, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The hon. Lady made great play of what the commissioner's contract would say. If the House approves the motion, Philip Mawer will sign a detailed contract, which covers

269
dealings with the media and all the other matters to which she referred. It contains written arrangements for dealing with problems and grievances that may arise. I hope that I have answered sufficiently the points that she made.
I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and his articles in Tribune. I have to tell him that I preferred him when he was playing cricket for Tribune rather than writing his articles. I know that he has probably given up the cricket, but he has not yet given up his articles.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made an eloquent speech, as we would expect. Like me, he knows Philip Mawer from a long time back. He is right in his assessment of Mr. Mawer's character and qualities. He said that he thought that there should be a long-term commissioner, and no doubt that point will be taken up in the weeks, months and years to come.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made a positive contribution, which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) summed up nicely when he said that it related to structural arguments. It was a fine, thoughtful speech, and one that we ought to take into account as we constantly review our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) made a refreshing speech. It was a minority speech, and it takes a lot to be the only one in step, especially in the House of Commons, but he made powerful arguments. Of course, the public do not think very highly of MPs and their standards, but since 1974 we have been on a par with estate agents. I do not want to disparage estate agents, but we have never quite lifted ourselves from that level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, who made an eloquent speech, brought the debate to a close. He has a different element of faith from some of us. He knows that I, a Protestant, have a Catholic wife, and so we go to a Catholic church as well as to a Protestant one. For Philip Mawer to have the full support of Catholics and Protestants, and for him to be nominated on Ash Wednesday, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, would be worthy of the House, of the Commission and of Mr. Mawer, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Philip John Courtney Mawer be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 598, dated 6th February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
Ordered,
That Sir Patrick Cormack be appointed a member of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Orders of the Day
  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
    Clause 8

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      7.18 pm
      Peter Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 28, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
      The amendment will be no surprise to the Minister because I raised the substance of it in meetings with him, in several interventions and in my own speech in the course of the Second Reading debate and, more recently, in a parliamentary question. Indeed, I gave notice of it to his Department. The amendment's purpose is very simple: to ensure that there is no delay in implementing the Bill, which Members on both sides of the House greatly welcome, once it has been passed. The central reason for that is to ensure that the people of St. Helena can celebrate their 500th anniversary as the British citizens that they thought they were, at least until 1981.
      Nothing in the Bill suggests that citizenship rights must be dependent on the issuing of a passport—indeed, such a suggestion would be absurd because, as I pointed out on Second Reading, passports may confirm but certainly do not confer citizenship. A passport is not and never has been regarded as a prerequisite for citizenship. Even if the Bill is passed without a concession or the amendment being made, many people in St. Helena and the other British overseas territories, just like people in this country, will enjoy their citizenship and the rights that accompany it without ever applying for, possessing, needing or using a passport.
      I accept that it would be administratively tidier to resolve the questions surrounding the design, printing and issuing of passports before citizenship is confirmed: those who have long waited to have their rights restored would simply have to wait a little longer. However, there are two important matters that I wish to draw to the attention of the House and especially my hon. Friend the Minister.
      The first was raised with me yesterday by the representative in London of the St. Helena Government, and has been raised before by other hon. Members. It relates to those whose work permits will expire between Royal Assent being given to the Bill and the commencement of its provisions. Are we really going to require such people to leave the country to reapply for an extension of their visa and their work permit? I hope that the Minister can give some comfort on that point.
      The second issue is of central importance to me and to the people of St. Helena. As I said, this year they celebrate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island by the Portuguese. The anniversary falls on 21 May, and the event is of huge significance to the Saints. No people were more affronted or more disadvantaged by the loss of their citizenship rights than the Saints. They believed that they held those rights in perpetuity, not least because of the royal charter conferred on them in the 17th century by Charles II. No people were more delighted by the

      271
      Government's welcome commitment in the White Paper and, subsequently, the Bill to the restoration of their rights.
      I cannot imagine that the Government do not recognise the importance of this anniversary to the Saints, nor that the Minister does not acknowledge both the cause for rejoicing that the restoration of their rights would represent, or the dismay that its further delay would cause. I seek an assurance that the administrative difficulties with issuing passports mentioned at various stages of the Bill's passage can be resolved, and that commencement can take place before 21 May. If such an assurance is given, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. Alternatively, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide a different sort of reassurance: that commencement will not be linked to the issuing of passports. In either event, the people of St. Helena and of other British overseas territories, will have their citizenship rights restored before that important date.
      The matter may not be of great moment to many people. It may not be of great importance to Foreign Office and Home Office officials in Whitehall, but it is of huge symbolic value to the Saints. I appeal to the Minister to exercise his discretion to ensure that 21 May is a red letter day for the Saints. I urge him not to be a party-pooper but to ensure that 21 May in St. Helena, if not Bradley day, is Bradshaw day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, if creeping will secure the concession, I am only too happy to do it on behalf of the Saints. I hope that he will take the opportunity to give full expression to the intention of legislation for which the Government deserve credit, and which would be the subject of celebration in St. Helena.
      Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on his amendment, and on the spirit of the argument that he has expressed this evening. He speaks for everyone with a love for and an association with the island of St. Helena in voicing the dear wish that by 21 May the citizenship of its people will have been restored. That citizenship was removed against their wishes. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's arguments and invite the Minister to assure the House that, come the 500th anniversary celebrations, the people of the island of St. Helena will have had their citizenship restored so that they can celebrate as all of us want them to.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I can imagine almost nothing worse than being labelled a party-pooper, so I hope to be able to say something that will send my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) away happy.
      We appreciate and share hon. Members' desire that the people of St. Helena should be able to celebrate their quincentenary on 21 May as British citizens. Our concern is that the amendment would do more to get in the way of achieving that goal than to achieve it. Were the amendment accepted, it would have consequences for those provisions of the Bill relating to the acquisition of British citizenship after commencement. That would require a further Government amendment to correct, which would delay the Bill's passage.
      272
      Let me explain why it is necessary to have a gap, albeit a very small one, between Royal Assent and commencement. It is because many fairly complicated administrative arrangements have to be put in place to allow citizens of British dependent territories, as they are now, to obtain proof of their new status on commencement. As my hon. Friend says, that proof will, in most cases, take the form of a new passport showing their new British status.
      To issue passports, we need to make practical arrangements, including agreeing the format with the overseas territories. That has not been easy. Although many in the House have been waiting a long time for the Bill, many in the overseas territories are surprised at the speed with which it has proceeded through Parliament. Some had concerns about the appearance of their passports, and time is needed to train the staff involved.
      We have every confidence that the practical arrangements will be in place to allow a commencement date well before St. Helena's quincentenary on 21 May, but—my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin should pay attention to this—in the unlikely event that the passport issuing arrangements are not in place by mid-May, we would make an order specifying 21 May as the commencement date.
      The Home Office has been extremely kind and agreed that if we do that, it will make exceptional arrangements to allow immediate exercise of the new rights. Those arrangements would allow those who hold British dependent territory citizenship passports derived from a connection with a territory other than the sovereign bases in Cyprus to use those passports as evidence of the right of abode in this country until such time as a full British citizen passport becomes available to them.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the issue relating to work permits is one for the Home Office. However, I shall take it up with my colleagues in that Department and hope that they will be as flexible in interpreting the law as they have been about accepting BDTC passports in lieu of British citizen passports. In the light of those arrangements, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
      Simon Hughes: I was listening carefully to the Minister and hoped to intervene before he sat down. Will he deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) about the principle that a passport is not needed to establish a person's eligibility for citizenship? The hon. Gentleman made the important point that some people may not need or seek a passport. It would be reassuring to people from St. Helena and the other territories if the Minister put it on the record that, although an expedited procedure for passport acquisition will be put in place, for which we are grateful, the citizenship rights of those who have no passport and do not want to apply for one will be confirmed by 21 May at the latest, or by some earlier date if the procedures are completed. That is the other assurance sought by the hon. Gentleman.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: Yes to both of those.
      Peter Bradley: There is no need for me to detain the House a great deal longer. I would be the most unpopular person in Westminster if I did, since we are probably going home early tonight.

      273
      I pay tribute to the Minister and those who advise him. If government were always so simple and it was always so simple to do the common-sense thing, we would probably all be out of a job. The news will be greeted, I am sure, with great approbation in St. Helena and by those in this country who have supported their cause over many years. This is a very good Bill, whose consideration has reached a happy conclusion in the House. I thank the Minister again, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.31pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I have listened with interest to the points made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Nationality is a fascinating and emotive subject. The Bill may be short, specific and contain few clauses, but the debate surrounding it has opened windows on different aspects of life in territories with close and long-established cultural and traditional links with the United Kingdom, but which are geographically far removed from these shores, and in some cases isolated.
      The passage of the Bill will mean that British dependent territories citizens will be full British citizens. They will be able to apply for British passports, to live, study and work in the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union, and to share the benefits of British citizenship that we all take for granted.
      I have noted with pleasure that the Bill commands widespread support in the Chamber, and I am extremely grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed its introduction and spoken in favour of its speedy and successful passage. I know that for many people in the overseas territories, Royal Assent and commencement cannot, as we have just discussed, come quickly enough. I hope that commencement will be very soon after Royal Assent.
      The Bill was first introduced in another place in June last year. It came to this House after thorough and wide-ranging debate, but without amendment. It has provided opportunities for hon. Members to raise a number of issues—not always central to the Bill—about the overseas territories, and in the process it has raised the profile of the territories themselves.
      This was always a good Bill, but the amendment in favour of the Ilois, agreed in Committee, means that the Bill leaves us even stronger. I commend it to the House.
      7.33 pm
      Mr. Richard Spring: We welcome the Bill, as we have throughout its progress through the House. It contains many important and positive aspects, and my party strongly supports its aims.
      The legislation is of great importance to the citizens of the 16 British overseas territories, which include Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos Islands and South Georgia. The legislation enjoys their full support and, as always in this House, we should pay
      274
      great attention to the views of the people directly affected by it. Our relationships with those territories are multi-faceted and valued by all concerned.
      Hon. Members will be aware of questions surrounding an airstrip on the island of St. Helena. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions, particularly in another place by the Earl of Iveagh, a constituent of mine. I am glad that it has been aired. In making decisions on such issues, we of course bear in mind the economic development of the area. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has sought to raise the profile of the island, and we are all grateful to him for doing so.
      The Bill is about granting British citizenship to the citizens of our overseas territories, recognising our partnership with them and giving them proper and accorded status.
      I am grateful to the Minister for the clarifications that he has offered on Second Reading and in Committee on various areas of concern. I am pleased that he has clarified the status of abandoned infants under the Bill, making it clear that citizenship granted to an abandoned infant will not be grounds for any parent or guardian who subsequently comes forward to claim it.
      I am also grateful to the Minister for clarifying European Union citizenship rules as they relate to the Bill. As I understand his answers, the EU's regulations extend to territories, not to people. Therefore, citizenship regulations would apply only if a British overseas citizen who became a British citizen took up abode in the UK. That is welcome news.
      There are still, however, one or two areas that we would note for future reference. One is the question of overseas fees for higher education—a matter that has been brought to the attention of the House before. It is understood how the rules work; it has become something of an EU matter. However, I should like to take this opportunity to say that the such education has a knock-on effect. It impacts on the lives of a number of young people who are able to study in this country and then return home with the knowledge that they have acquired. Such education also establishes great links with this country and most particularly benefits students' respective homelands.
      The education of such young people is a tremendous investment, not only for those involved but in establishing the affection and ties that inevitably arise when part of one's education is in this country. We must continue to bear that in mind and to monitor it.
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is widespread support for that point of view. Many of us who represent universities and others hope that the necessary cross-departmental efforts can bring about the change that he has advocated and that many of us want. That will be very important and another sign of our support for the next generation of people in overseas territories.
      Mr. Spring: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's message, which I am sure the Minister will have taken on board.
      I am pleased that EU citizenship regulations, as they relate to the Bill, have been clarified. The relationship of the overseas territories with the EU and general nationality rules continue to be important. I truly hope that the Government will keep a wary eye on that.

      275
      I reiterate my party's full support for the amendments made in Committee, as I did during those proceedings. I once again pay tribute to the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the issue of the Chagos islanders. The injustice was insufficiently recognised in the House, and hon. Members will be grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for drawing the matter to their attention in a compelling way. I hope very much that the right of return of the islanders, as recognised in a recent High Court case, will be clarified further and that the process will be taken on accordingly.
      Overall, this is a very important, welcome and much supported Bill. It works towards a partnership, as the White Paper desired, and demonstrates our commitment to the citizens of British overseas territories, wherever they May be. Once again, I commend the work that has been done on the Bill and the Minister's courtesy while navigating its passage through the House and clarifying its clauses. We fully support the Bill's objectives and welcome its Third Reading.
      7.38 pm
      Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for his kind remarks about the Chagos islanders and the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have raised the matter in the House. I understand that the Minister is suffering some discomfort, so I shall be as brief as possible. So that he can get away, I shall not ask any complicated questions.
      I enjoyed serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for sending me a lengthy and full answer to my interminable questions on the role of Antarctica in the Bill. Particularly since nobody lives there, it was very helpful of him to discuss at smile length the possible citizenship of people who might at some point live there—apart from if they are in some terrible Channel 4 programme and are stuck there. That could be a good idea. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am not sure that I wholly agree with him on the Antarctic, but I promise not to discuss it further this evening, save to say that I have a whole box of papers on Antarctica from the time that I have been in the House. The former right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I raised the matter during consideration of the Antarctic Minerals Bill and at other times.
      I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk about the right of access to further and higher education in this country for overseas citizens. I do not pretend that there is any simple, logical answer, but some way should be found for us to ensure that people who, after all, will be given British citizenship as soon as the Bill is enacted, should have access to higher education institutions in Britain. That seems proper and sensible, and I hope that some Means can be found to achieve it.
      I welcome the amendments that the Minister moved in Committee—I subsequently withdrew mine—concerning the British Indian Ocean Territories, the Ilois people and their right of access to citizenship. As my hon. Friend well understands, there is a good deal of resentment among the Ilois People about the way in which they were removed from the islands by secret interstate negotiations in the 1960s and 1970s, and deposited on Mauritius or, in the case Of some, on the Seychelles, given minimum compensation and forgotten about.
      276
      Once again, we should reiterate our thanks to Olivier Bancoult and all who have campaigned so successfully and so well for so long, culminating finally in a successful High Court action which allowed the Ilois the right of return to the Chagos islands. That is an important step forward and has been warmly welcomed.
      However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the right of return has been authorised by the High Court in this country. There is the possibility of a class action being taken in the United States on behalf of those who were moved from Diego Garcia, which is currently a US base, and that to date no Chagosians have been allowed to return to the islands. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is sponsoring an environmental impact study and a study of the economic viability of a return to the islands. We look forward to the results of those studies.
      Just before Christmas, I took part in a lengthy and useful meeting with Baroness Amos in the Foreign Office with Olivier Bancoult, Richard Gifford, his solicitor, and a small delegation. We discussed all these issues. It is strange that the Chagos islanders—the Ilois people—are not allowed to return to the islands, yet I understand that the British Indian Ocean Territories police do nothing about passing millionaire yachtsmen drawing up their yachts alongside the outer islands of the archipelago and staying there for a considerable time without being told to move on.
      Any Chagos islander trying to go back gets stopped by fishery protection vessels on their way to the islands. There seems to be something wrong there. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) says, there could be a bit of class politics going on. Although such notions are not supposed to be popular among those on the Government Benches, some of us still understand them—[Interruption.]—and even practise them.
      I do not ask the Minister to respond immediately, but I hope that he will look into the matter. Will he also assure me that when the assessments are complete and we have a meeting with Baroness Amos in April, when Olivier Bancoult is returning to the UK, we will be able to discuss the practicalities of returning to the archipelago as a whole, the support that will be given to the community to do that, the employment practices of the United States on the base, and importantly, the opportunity for the islanders to visit the islands, to visit their burial sites and their ancestral homes, and to see the place from which their parents grandparents were so brutally plucked away in the 1970s?
      I hope that my hon. Friend can ensure that the British Indian Ocean Territories authority will arrange for that return to take place, initially as a visit, and that when we finally have our meeting in April with Baroness Amos, which I hope to attend, we can explore the practicalities of return.
      My final point relates to the islanders themselves. Had they remained on the Chagos islands, had Diego Garcia never become a base, and had the cold war never happened, the islanders would have had an elected authority of some sort. They would now be residents of those islands and they would be receiving passports, just like the people of St. Helena and all the other places. The Chagos islanders were plucked away, so the Bill had to be Specially amended in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for that enormous step forward.

      277
      Had the Ilois people remained on the Chagos islands, their elected authority would have been supported by public funds, as is the case in all the other territories. Apart from the minimal compensation given to the Ilois on settlement in Mauritius, they have received no support whatever. We should be grateful to the Mauritius Government for the support that they have given, but the Ilois have lived in poverty. For Olivier to come to this country, they must arrange a collection among the community to buy him an air ticket so that he can negotiate with the British Government on behalf of his people. I hope that when we meet in April, there will be some recognition of the need for practical support for the community, and in addition, for pensions for the older members of the community, and access to further and higher education—primary education is provided by the Government of Mauritius.
      I welcome what has been achieved so far. It has been a great step forward, but we are not quite there yet. A ghastly injustice happened. It has not yet been put right. The Americans are not allowing Chagos islanders to work on the base. The British Indian Ocean Territories police are not allowing them to return to the islands, and the impact assessment seems to be taking rather a long time.
      I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I are well seized of the matter and have no plans to let it go. We will keep on raising it in the House. We recognise the importance of what has happened, but there is a way to go. Justice will finally happen when the Chagos islanders can make a genuine choice to continue living in Mauritius or the Seychelles or to return to their ancestral homes, with the right to see the graves of their ancestors and the place from which they were so brutally taken away. A horrible injustice happened; let us put it right.
      7.47 pm
      Mr. Michael Trend: I reiterate my support for the Bill. Its passage through the House has been refreshingly free of party political sniping. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would have liked to see the measure passed when we were in government. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on introducing it.
      I agree that there is a need to get the measure into law as expeditiously as possible. I welcome the Minister's comments to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) about finding a way to finesse the important matter to the islanders of St. Helena of their anniversary and the generous gesture that has been made.
      I have one or two regrets about the Bill. We have heard about higher education opportunities for people on some of the territories. I should have preferred it if we could have made statutory provision for that in the Bill. We raised the matter in Committee, but it is not to be. It is clear that the Government will not move on that. I know that in various Departments the Government have schemes to help the overseas territories where there are special training requirements or where special expertise is needed.
      I ask the Government to be sympathetic with regard to further and higher education. There is no reasonable prospect of very many islanders from around the world being able to afford the residence that would be necessary and the cost of higher education. I hope that the
      278
      Government will keep a special place in their mind to ensure that there is a steady flow of well-educated younger people coming from and going back to the territories.
      I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about the ship and the airport. I believe that the St. Helenians and others who are interested in the matter—the Falkland islanders, the Ascension islanders and even those on the ship—recently had a vote, which came out decisively in favour of building an airport on St. Helena. There are arguments for and against that. One can appreciate the problems of an airport, including its cost and the expense of replacing the boat.
      However, the islanders and those associated with the islands have expressed a clear, democratic view that they want to take what many must perceive as a risk. I hope that the Department for International Development and other partners in the project will give it a clear run. The circumstances of the islanders, especially those on St. Helena, are unusual. If they want an airport, I hope that the Government can ensure that they get it.
      I regret that it was not proper to discuss British overseas citizenship in the context of the Bill. It is purely a coincidence that I wrote to the Minister yesterday about a constituency case of a British overseas citizen in Tanzania. She was given, probably mistakenly, a full British passport 10 years ago. When she tried to renew it, she was told that she should not have had it in the first place. However, for 10 years, she was sure that she was a full British citizen, and she believed that her children would also have that status. I ask the Minister to consider the letter carefully because the status of British overseas citizens remains unsatisfactory. We may have to revert to the matter on another occasion. When our authorities have made errors, sympathy should be shown to those who have been misled for some time.
      My greatest regret is that we have failed to make progress on establishing an annual report to the House on the subject. The Minister rightly pointed out that several extraneous debates took place around the Bill. That happened because many hon. Members are interested in the subject, but it is rarely discussed in the Chamber. The Minister said that we cannot have an annual report or debate. However, he also said that the Overseas Territories Consultative Council meets annually in London in the autumn, and that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs can consider the overseas territories. Perhaps it could schedule an annual discussion. The Government might wish to invite somebody from the Committee to the Overseas Territories Consultative Council; perhaps hon. Members could be involved in the meeting. If the Minister asked me, I should be delighted to attend this year.
      There is frustration that we do not have sufficient opportunity to discuss such important issues except during short Adjournment debates. I ask the Minister and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to consider whether a regular event could be held.
      Simon Hughes: I support that idea. Although there may be some obligation on the Government, I hope that the parties collaborate to facilitate a regular annual debate.

      279
      Other subjects have set a precedent, which we could usefully follow. Pressure on the Government should be maintained.
      Mr. Trend: That was a helpful intervention. There is a problem of democratic deficit. The Government have made laws and are writing constitutions for some territories, which have no direct representation here. That problem will not go away. It will be exacerbated if the Government have other ambitions to make laws in those territories. For the sake of everyone's sanity, I therefore recommend a regular occasion for considering such matters. A problem could thus be perceived when it appeared on the horizon rather than when it got closer.
      I thank the Minister, especially for the many letters that he has written and the explanations that he has given. I am particularly grateful for a recent letter about Cyprus. I probed the matter delicately in Committee, and he provided a full explanation. I am now an expert on the way in which British citizenship relates to Cyprus, and the circumstances of our treaty. I am sure that that also applies to him. I am also grateful to those in his office who have spoken to me about the complicated circumstances on Pitcairn. I hope to be kept in touch with events there as they unfold.
      I congratulate the Father of the House and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) who have done so much for Chagos islanders. I acknowledge that the Government have taken an important step forward with grace and style. That is a good development.
      I wish the Bill and our new citizens well. They may not be full citizens, as some of us would like, but they are British citizens and they will have passports like the rest of us. That development, long overdue, will be welcome in all the territories. I hope that the Bill is passed.
      7.56 pm
      Bob Russell: Liberal Democrats Welcome the progress that the Bill has made; it is on its final stretch. I thank the civil servants and Ministers who have been involved in the journey from the start.
      The reasons for introducing the Bill have not been mentioned this evening. It should be put on record that a grave injustice was done 20 to 21 years ago. It is to the Government's credit that they are righting that wrong. The importance of 21 May for St. Helena has already been mentioned. However, resolving citizenship problems as soon as possible is important for all the overseas territories for the reasons that have been given. We are considering 200,000 people. That is not a large number in the grand scheme of things.
      I want to concentrate on St. Helena because it introduced me to the subject that we are considering. Shortly after the 1997 general election, I received a letter from a constituent who drew my attention to the injustice that had been inflicted on that island and the other territories. That led to my visiting St. Helena. There is a connection between the island and my constituency because St. Helena is the patron saint of Colchester; I was educated at St. Helena school. The spelling is the same as that of the island, but the pronunciation is different. Many Saints who reside in the United Kingdom will welcome
      280
      the Bill. I am sure that we all know Mr. Calvin Thomas, one of our Doorkeepers. He is one Saint who will be delighted that progress has been made.
      More people per head of population on St. Helena volunteer for Her Majesty's armed forces than anywhere else that is connected with the United Kingdom. We have responsibility for the territories, but they have no elected representation here. When we examine constitutional reform, perhaps we could consider a way in which all overseas territories can have an input into the democratic process here.
      St. Helena has a slogan: ACE—"A" for access, "C" for citizenship and "E" for economy and education. Tonight we are moving firmly towards putting a tick against the "C" for citizenship. Reference has been made to education, but the economy of the island needs more than just education; it needs further sustainable help.
      That brings me to the "A" for access. Although this is not dealt with in the Bill, the island's future depends on access. I have had the joy of visiting it, but it took a week to get there. It was an enjoyable trip, but the island cannot fulfil its economic destiny if the only access to it is by means of a week's journey by boat; an airfield is required.
      This is a joyous evening, and I congratulate the Minister and his team. If he can deliver these provisions by 21 May, there may well be a statue of him in Jamestown in the future.
      8 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I reiterate the comments of many hon. Members in congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill. It is long overdue, and I regret the fact that these measures were not introduced by the Conservative Government. All British people should be given equal rights, and be treated in exactly the same way, whoever they are and wherever in the world they may live. I believe that everybody in this democratically elected House of Commons should support that view.
      I commend the Government on taking this great step towards giving the people of the overseas territories the right to British citizenship that has been denied them for so long. The Minister talked about many of the overseas territories being geographically far away from the British isles. That is true in many cases. They are not far away, however, in terms of their desire to be British or of their determination to have the same status that we and our constituents enjoy. So, while I congratulate the Government—as everyone has done tonight—I believe that that is a matter to which greater consideration should be given.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) said that there was a democratic deficit, and that is absolutely true. We should all be concerned about that problem; it involves British people whom we in this Parliament govern. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is not here tonight, spoke in the debate in Westminster Hall last week on Gibraltar. He said that the Prime Minister of Gibraltar was Tony Blair. He also said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Gibraltar was Gordon Brown, and that its Defence Secretary was Geoff Hoon—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now moving outside the scope of the Bill. This is a Third Reading debate and he must confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill before the House.
      Mr. Rosindell: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Although we are all congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill, we must look beyond it. We have to consider the other people for whom we have responsibility—the people of the British overseas territories—and I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on his steadfast defence of the people of St. Helena. I also congratulate all those who have spoken up for the rights of the people of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I am delighted that their rights were acknowledged in Committee. This is a huge step in the right direction. I commend the Government on what they are proposing to do at this stage, but I ask them to look at this issue in the longer term, to consider the points made about democratic representation, and to give all British people of the overseas territories the same rights that we enjoy in the British isles. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) suggested on Second Reading that these matters could also be considered in discussions relating to the constitutional reform of the House of Lords, and I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
      8.5 pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me if I rattle through my speech somewhat. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out that I was feeling a bit under the weather, and I am hoping to get through this before I have to rush out. I shall try to do so without hurrying too much.
      I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate. As ever, it has been excellent, and I am particularly grateful for the constructive and courteous approach adopted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) throughout the Bill's passage through the House. He raised a number of issues that have been raised before in Committee and elsewhere. On higher education—an issue raised by a number of hon. Members—we have a great deal of sympathy with the citizens of the overseas territories who will become British citizens under the Bill. I can only repeat that the Bill deals with citizenship, not residency. Rights and access to higher education, and help with higher education funding in this country, are dependent on residency, not on citizenship.
      That does not mean, however, that the Government are not looking at new ways in which we could help, particularly in the case of some of the more remote territories that have no higher education facilities. Some such schemes are already in operation, and I remind hon. Members that a review of higher education funding is currently going on in Government, to which I hope they will contribute, making the points they have made here tonight.
      282
      I should like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and other hon. Members on the Ilois. That brings me to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North throughout the passage of the Bill; he has made an outstanding contribution. He is right to say that a terrible wrong was meted out to the Ilois people, and, step by step, we are putting that right. Certainly, as long as I am in this job, I shall continue to listen very sympathetically to any representations that he makes that are similar to those he made this evening. I hope that he will take up the issues directly in a meeting that he is having with my noble Friend who leads on the matter of the overseas territories in the other place, Baroness Amos.
      My hon. Friend's question about the yacht intrigued me, so I asked my officials for advice. Apparently, there is nothing to stop anyone from returning to the outer islands. It is just that, at the moment, the Ilois want us to do it for them; they want us to organise a resettlement package. So, in theory, in the unlikely event of an Ilois having the money, they could hop on to one of these yachts and go back. There is no law against people arriving on the outer islands.
      Jeremy Corbyn: A bit of hitch-hiking, perhaps.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I suspect that that is something that both of us did in our younger days—if not still, when I occasionally find myself stranded in strange parts of the world.
      The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) touched on the issue of higher education, and I hope that what I have said will encourage him. I was asked why there was no statutory provision written into the Bill, and I have explained that that is because the Bill is about citizenship, and not about residency, which is what confers rights to higher education funding. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about St. Helena's access problems. He will be aware that the Department for International Development has agreed to fund the lower amount already, and it is discussing helpfully and sympathetically with the St. Helena Government how the difference can be made up between the cost of the airport and the new ship. I promise to give close attention to the letter that the hon. Gentleman has written to me on British overseas citizens, although that subject was outside the scope of the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) expressed their disquiet that the citizens of the overseas territories do not have political representation. They do, however, have such representation in that a lot of them have quite a high level of self-governance. I would suggest that they also have indirect political representation in this House and in the other place. The total population of the overseas territories is about 200,000—less than twice the population of my constituency. Given the time that the two Houses spend debating the overseas territories—quite rightly—and the time Members dedicate to championing the cause of those territories, I think they are better represented than many of our constituencies.
      Mr. Rosindell: I understand that there is a proposal for Western Isles with a population of 21,000, to retain its single Member of Parliament. Gibraltar has a population of 29,000.
      Mr. Bradshaw: As Western Isles is part of the United Kingdom, there is a substantial difference.
      One or two Members pointed out that a review was currently being conducted of second-stage reform of the House of Lords. I urge Members, through their parties or through the usual channels, to make their feelings known about how the overseas territories might be represented in that way; but the suggestion that they are under-represented is, I think, a long way from the truth.
      The hon. Member for Colchester picked up a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), which I did not catch, about statues. I hope there was no suggestion that—given the small role I have played in the Bill's passage—there should be a statue of me. Many others have been involved, not least Lady Amos, the lead Minister on these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was responsible for the White Paper in which the Bill had its beginnings. My right hon. Friend still shows a great interest in the Bill, and he was extremely helpful in securing the Ilois amendments. Many people, not least in the House of Commons, do a great job in championing the causes of the overseas territories, and would be far worthier subjects of any statues, wherever they might be erected.
      I thank hon. Members for supporting a Bill that means so such to so many. In particular I thank my officials, who have done an excellent job in getting the Bill through so smoothly and responding to Members' queries about its details. Those officials will consider what more needs to be done in the light of today's debate. In the meantime, I am delighted that we have agreed that the Bill can be returned to another place for final approval.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  DEREGULATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I propose to put together the Questions on the deregulation motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

  DEREGULATION
    RESTAURANT LICENSING HOURS
    That the draft Deregulation (Restaurant Licensing Hours) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

    GAMING
    That the draft Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    FRAUD
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 9208/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud: Commission's Twelfth Annual Report 2000, 9207/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—Fight Against Fraud: Action Plan for 2001–2003, and the Court of Auditors' annual report for 2000; and encourages the Government's continuing efforts to promote and support measures to improve financial management and reduce the opportunities for fraud against the EC financial interest.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
    That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    PARISH COUNCILS
    Ordered,
    That the Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) (England) order 2001, (S.I., 2001, No. 3576), dated 5th November 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Community Football
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
8.13 pm
Colin Burgon: I am happy to have secured a debate on a subject that is of such interest to me and, I hope, to millions of other people.
As a keen student of American politics, I know that the Gettysburg address lasted two and a half minutes. I think that my address will last slightly longer, and I hope that it will buy me a place in history.
Let me begin by quoting what Nelson Mandela said to Leeds United footballer Lucas Radebe when they met in South Africa:
"We can reach far more people through sport than we can through political or educational programmes. In that way, sport is more powerful than politics. We have only just begun to use its potential to build up this country. We must continue to do so."
That is a powerful statement with important implications, and it sets my agenda for this evening. The context of the statement is very pertinent, and I will return to it later.
As recently as 30 January my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) initiated a wide-ranging and informative debate in Westminster Hall on football club funding. Tonight, I want to concentrate on football in the community, and although this debate will be less wide ranging I hope it will be at least as informative.
Let me praise the role of the Football Foundation, launched in July 2000 under the excellent chairmanship of Lord Pendry. It is a unique partnership, consisting of the Football Association, the premier league, Sport England and the Government. Its aims include establishing a new generation of modern football facilities in parks, local leagues and schools, the provision of capital and revenue support for the running of "grass-roots" football, and strengthening the links between football and the community to harness the potential of football as a force for good in society. Football is seen as a means by which we can achieve social cohesion, and as a vehicle for education in the community throughout the country. That is the aspect that I want to discuss.
Professional football clubs today are big business. I first started attending games with my father in the late 1950s—I hope I am not giving my age away—and I have witnessed at first hand the tremendous changes, not all of them positive, that have taken place. In those days, clubs were run by a prominent local business man, with the emphasis on "local". When I first went to matches, the chairman of Leeds United was a man called Harry Reynolds, a scrap-metal merchant who made urgent half-time appeals to people not to throw their lighted cigarette ends into the straw piled on the edge of the pitch to protect the playing surface from frost. Today we have under-soil heating to protect the pitch. That small detail encapsulates the way in which clubs have been transformed.
Make no mistake: clubs have indeed been transformed. The main stakeholders are the shareholders, and the bigger the individual shareholding, the bigger the influence. That is a reflection of the world of modern business. Football clubs, however, are a very special kind of business. The stakeholders include the supporters,
286
who feel that such clubs are truly their clubs, and the wider community, who identify with their local football clubs. In that sense football is a business, but it is certainly unique.
It would be hard to argue with the view that there is almost a perfect word association between the cities and towns of our country and their football clubs. It is impossible to think of one without picturing the other. Who could think of Colchester without thinking of Colchester United?
The world of football is a world of excitement. It is a magnet for young people who hold their favourite clubs and football heroes in great esteem. The question now asked by a growing number of professional clubs is how that power can be harnessed and used to the benefit of the community. I am very pleased that my home-city club, Leeds United, is at the forefront of that move.
As long ago as 1998 the Leeds United chairman Peter Ridsdale—a man of vision and energy—and his board of directors made a commitment that, while planning to make Leeds one of the top clubs in Europe, they would also work to make a similar impact in the area of community development. As a result, Community United was launched. Resources were put into the club. I am now informed that they are running at £750,000 a year, which attracts additional funding from both the public and the private sectors.
After four years of effort, and thanks to the imagination and commitment of Emma Stanford, the head of community affairs, the community department has 30 full-time staff, 35 part-time staff and more than 100 volunteers. By my reading, that makes it the biggest community football team in the country. Interestingly, the department is bigger than Leeds United's commercial department.
The work of Community United can be divided roughly into three areas: football in the community, community affairs and education and learning. The first area, football in the community, revolves principally around grass-roots football coaching for girls and boys of all abilities from the ages of five to 14. I am pleased that provision is also made for children with disabilities in the ability counts programme.
Almost 50,000 children are involved in the coaching programme, with the emphasis, I am pleased to say, on enjoyment as much as skill. Rewards are based on attitude and improvement rather than talent; in that sense, I would be a gifted pupil.
The second area covers community affairs—it is truly wide ranging. It encompasses such things as the fans forum, which attempts to give the ordinary fan real influence in elements of the way in which the club operates; the organising of creche and playgroups; and support for various charities.
The club has, for example, supported the well known St. Gemma's hospice in Leeds. It has worked with the Royal National Institute for the Blind to produce a pioneering large print programme, and it is currently working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief on a badge appeal. Leeds United has donated £7,000 to produce 50,000 replica blue away kit shirt lapel badges. So far, more than 33,000 badges have been distributed, and at a cost of £1 they will give Macmillan Cancer Relief a significant financial boost. That hands-on approach to

287
supporting charities extends beyond the domestic front. For example, the club gives financial assistance to a children's AIDS orphanage in Malawi.
Carrying on the international theme, it is a source of pride at the club that when the British Council organised a one-day seminar as part of its football nation initiative in South Africa's soccer expo in Johannesburg, it chose Leeds United to make the presentation. Emma Stanford and Steve Smith, the club's education manager, were asked to explain how the education programme runs at Elland Road and to investigate the practicalities of South African clubs launching similar schemes. It was at that time that the comments I quoted earlier from Nelson Mandela were made to Leeds United and South Africa captain Lucas Radebe, whose life was partly lived in Soweto, under the shadow of apartheid.
Lucas Radebe has been centrally involved with the Leeds United against racism campaign. Along with fellow players such as Olivier Dacourt, Mark Viduka and Rio Ferdinand, he has visited schools to talk about the need to combat racism. In the past few weeks, certificates have been presented, in partnership with the Yorkshire Evening Post, to several primary schools in the south Leeds area for raising awareness of racism. The Leeds United against racism campaign has recently distributed 30,000 team photos to school children throughout the city and surrounding areas.
As stated in a recent match programme, the club is conscious that working alone it cannot get rid of racism—a problem that faces the whole of society. However, the club has made it clear that it will do whatever is in its power to combat racism.
That intent is particularly significant in the case of a club such as Leeds, which in the past has been bedevilled by the problem of racist groups attaching themselves to the club and tarnishing its image and, indeed, that of the city. I remember when a black goalkeeper playing for Manchester City—the Minister will probably remember him—was bombarded by the crowd with bananas. The response of the management at that time was to say, "It is just high spirits. There is nothing in it." I also saw the crowd at Elland Road endlessly bait Justin Fashanu, who played for Norwich City and who is unfortunately now dead. It was enough to turn my stomach. It was probably the only time in my life that I have cheered when an opponent, Justin Fashanu, put the ball in the back of the Leeds United net. Progress has been made.
The third area of Community United's work is education and learning. As an ex-school teacher, I am particularly interested in that aspect. I have visited the learning centre at Elland Road with Emma Stanford to see at first hand the type of work in which Steve Smith and his colleagues are engaged. Their work encompasses all the 23 primary schools and four high schools in what is called the local family of schools. It is worth noting that some 47 clubs from the premier league and Nationwide division one are involved in the playing for success programme and that Leeds was one of the three original pilots, along with Newcastle United and the Minister's second favourite team, Sheffield Wednesday.
The playing for success initiative established by the Department for Education and Skills has proved very popular with pupils, parents and schools, and nowhere
288
more so than at Leeds United. Great work has been done in the learning centre, which is based beneath the south stand and occupies an area the full width of the football pitch. The staff at the learning centre set themselves five objectives: to raise pupil achievement; to develop pupils' skills in literacy, numeracy and information and communication technology; to develop pupils' confidence and self-esteem; to increase pupil motivation; and to develop positive links with parents. By any subjective or objective measure, the staff are achieving real progress.
The parental feedback collected by the learning centre revealed that all parents were very pleased that their child had attended the Leeds United study support centre. The vast majority—more than 95 per cent.—agreed that the centre had helped their child to get better at reading, writing, maths and computer use. Many identified the fact that their child was more willing to go to school and had a wider circle of friends, and some believed that their child had a better chance of getting a job when they left school as a result. About 70 per cent. of parents commented that their child's confidence had also increased.
The feedback from pupils was also very positive. The playing for success sessions operated outside school hours each evening from 3.30 to 7.30 and on Saturday mornings. On top of that, children spent up to an extra hour and a half travelling to and from the centre in all weathers. To bear testimony to the popularity of the project, an impressive 40 per cent. of pupils received 100 per cent. attendance awards. The vast majority of pupils recognised that they had developed their skills in literacy, numeracy and particularly ICT. Attitudes to learning had become more positive and their confidence had increased. The only doubt that pupils seemed to have was about the quality of the orange juice on offer.
The evaluation done by the National Foundation for Educational Research also makes very positive reading. Its findings at national level can be applied to the success achieved by the Leeds United learning centre. The first key finding of the NFER report was that pupils made substantial and significant progress in numeracy. On average, primary pupils improved their numeracy scores by about 21 months, and secondary pupils improved theirs by about eight months. Secondary pupils' reading comprehension scores improved significantly—by the equivalent of about six months. Teachers also noticed particular improvements in pupils' self-confidence and ICT skills.
To underpin all those findings, the report said:
"The football setting proved attractive to all pupils, regardless of gender and ethnic background. It was a strong element in motivating pupils to become involved in 'Playing for Success'."
That is further proof of the power and far-reaching influence of our national game and the way in which it has been harnessed to achieve positive outcomes for the community.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I would be copping out—to use a Yorkshire phrase—if I failed to mention the Bowyer-Woodgate case that has generated such negative publicity for Leeds United. I agree with the comments recently made by chairman Peter Ridsdale in a match programme. He said that, due to the case
"There has been a shadow cast over all the good work we have done … substantial damage has been done to the club's reputation."

289
Peter Ridsdale is a man with both his feet firmly on the ground. He is intelligent and perceptive enough to acknowledge the gravity of the case and its wide-ranging repercussions.
In acknowledging and highlighting the work done in the community by Leeds United football club, I hope that I can help to ensure a balanced, accurate and informed debate about the part played by football clubs and players in the community. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirming his support for the Football Foundation and its valuable work in promoting football in the community, and recognising the work of Leeds United in the community. In many respects, it is a leader in this field. It is also an example to other large companies and organisations of the need to get involved in their communities.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend also use his considerable influence in discussions with the football authorities and the Professional Footballers Association to raise the issue of highly paid players acknowledging in their contracts the need to help develop football in the community? It is only right and proper that clubs and players recognise the debt that they owe to the community that in turn supports them.
8.29 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) for bringing this matter to the House's attention this evening. It is nice to be able to respond to a debate about Leeds United in a positive way. It is good to hear about what might be called the other side of the coin with regard to the club, and to hear the argument put so forcefully by my hon. Friend. I know that he has followed football, and Leeds United, for many years. He has been deeply involved in the development of the role of the club that he has described this evening.
I also wish to put on record my support for the Football Foundation and its work. I had a meeting last night with Lord Pendry and Peter Lee, the chief executive of the Football Foundation, who are doing a fine job. Having laid the foundations of their work in their first 12 months in post, they are now really developing matters. I was with the Football Foundation in the north-east a couple of weeks ago, looking for ways to develop further the area's football heritage among amateur clubs.
I am also pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned Emma Stanford and Steve Smith. I spoke to them about community development at Leeds United, and credit is due to them for their vision and hard work in that respect. I am pleased that their efforts have been brought to the House's attention.
There is no doubt that certain players have brought the sport into disrepute. I do not want to discuss that in detail this evening. The House is well aware that the behaviour of a few players, on and off the pitch, is a matter for the clubs that employ them and for the sport's governing bodies.
I have made my concerns about recent developments clear to the football authorities. I still have those concerns, but I know that the football authorities are taking action. The legislation that was put onto the statute book a little while ago is helping them to deal with what I hope will be isolated incidents. I want us to get back to where we used to be with football. I believe that the sport was
290
developing a good corporate governance which, as my hon. Friend noted, involved fans and community in a very positive way.
I was glad to hear about the efforts of some players to redeem the reputation of the Leeds United club in the local community. Those efforts have included real commitment to playing for success, which established out-of-school-hours study support centres at football clubs and other sports grounds. As my hon. Friend said, the Leeds United club deserves commendation, as it was one of the pioneers in setting up the original playing for success project. Moreover, the club's own learning centre has justly been praised.
The centres use the sporting environment as a motivational tool to raise standards of literacy, numeracy and computer skills among children who are struggling at school and who may lack motivation. Centres are located at clubs and are staffed by experienced teachers, supported by students in further and higher education. That is to be welcomed, as the linkages between the various institutions involved and the clubs are very important.
The centres usually have a first-class IT centre, generally sponsored by local business. I have seen many examples as I have gone around the country. Real enthusiasm exists, as is evident in the sponsorship—financial and sometimes material—provided by local businesses, and in the involvement of companies in the community. That involvement also reaps reciprocal benefits for those businesses.
I have been delighted with the progress of the initiative and would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those involved with the development of this programme, both in Government and in the community sector. More than 25,000 pupils have benefited so far, and a further 25,000 will also benefit each year when all the proposed centres are opened.
Many centres are also opening during the school day, and are helping adult learning. In that way, they support other initiatives such as Learn Direct and the new deal. As my hon. Friend said, 57 football and other sports clubs have signed up to the full PFS model, and 43 have opened other centres. A further 13 clubs are involved in developing other innovative ways of linking education and sport under the PFS banner.
National evaluations of playing for success have found improvements in literacy and numeracy, ICT skills and motivation to learn. That is happening in some of the more difficult areas around the country, as that is where the centres are located. Indeed, the evaluation carried out in 2001 found significant gains in pupil performance, including numeracy scores improving by an average of 21 months. That is a staggering improvement when we consider that the young people going to these centres think that they are no-hopers.
The evaluation also found that the scheme reached its target group of under-achieving pupils, and that all benefited regardless of gender, deprivation, ethnicity, fluency in English or special needs. A third-year evaluation is shortly to be completed and early indications predict similar significant gains.
Football does a great deal of excellent work, but it is not the only sport that appreciates its important role in community development. I am also aware of many initiatives developed by the regional administrators of

291
sports such as cricket, rugby league and rugby union. In my city of Sheffield, basketball has also taken up the challenge. These initiatives, which are often developed independently of Government programmes, have incorporated the Government's message that sport and recreational activities can make a significant difference and a major contribution to neighbourhood renewal. They can bring about real improvement in a range of areas, including health, employment, education and the reduction of crime.
These sports do not always get football's publicity, so I shall say a few words about some that play a tremendous role in our communities. I have been impressed by the initiatives that have been supported by the English rugby league. The diversity and quality of some these initiatives are, in no small measure, a consequence of the location of many clubs in areas of considerable ethnic diversity and social and economic deprivation. I commend these clubs and the sport of English rugby league as a whole on their initiative and professionalism in embracing their communities in this way.
Most rugby league clubs run thriving community schemes. In Bradford, which is very near my hon. Friend's constituency, the Bradford Bulls are an excellent example of what rugby league is doing. The Bulls visit more than 100 schools each year to deliver assemblies, road shows and coaching programmes, with initiatives tackling drug awareness and racism in sport. That is a considerable achievement. As a further development, the club has set up the Bull study centre. Assisted by Bradford local education authority, the centre encourages young people to absorb positive lifestyle messages and develop self-esteem and confidence in a sporting environment.
The Bulls are involved in many other community programmes, and their success must be attributed to the club's partnership with my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. There is also considerable involvement with local government, private enterprise and the private sector.
Cricket is another widely supported team sport through which clubs have acknowledged their role in community development. I have been pleased to learn of the organisations for cricket played by disabled people. There are two independent organisations representing disabled cricket—the Cricket Federation for People with Disabilities and the British Association for Cricketers with Disabilities—and they are working together to develop disabled people's position in the sport.
The England and Wales Cricket Board has a disability subgroup which is charged with meeting the needs of disabled people who wish to play cricket. The subgroup is a partnership between the board and the two disability organisations, the British Deaf Sports Council and British Blind Sport. Developments taking place through the national governing body are already paying dividends. The Somerset Disabled Cricket Club, for example, is an integral part of the county set-up. The club competes effectively in the disabled county championship and
292
works in partnership with Leonard Cheshire, the leading United Kingdom charity providing services for disabled people, now in 51 countries around the world.
Another of sport's governing bodies, the Welsh rugby union, has also embraced initiatives that invest in the community that it serves. That has been going on since 1992 through the Dragons rugby trust whose initial programme was designed to support the development of rugby union in Wales.
The trust's programme is not elitist. It aims to promote excellence as a by-product of the widest possible participation of young people in Wales. The trust attracts sponsorship from the private sector as well as support from the International Rugby Board. It also seeks to promote the more intangible facets of community involvement—building on the feelings of inclusion and enthusiasm felt by many young people in Wales when watching their national game. The personal development of young people through sport is an important aim of the trust.
The trust aims to increase the number of Dragon development officers to one per unitary authority, and to support that work through the appointment of community development officers, funded jointly by the public, private and voluntary sectors. Another important objective is to expand provision for girls and for youngsters with learning and other disabilities. Although they are enthusiastic about rugby, they sometimes find few opportunities to participate in the game. The trust is working hard to achieve social inclusion through rugby union in Wales.
Considerable work is going on throughout the country to address through the medium of sport some of the difficult problems as regards social inclusion, drugs awareness and, to some extent, health and education. My hon. Friend has been able to bring to the attention of the House the positive role that football is playing. I shall take his message to professional footballers by asking what further role they can play not only in their game but in the wider community.
I have no doubt that the PFA and the football authorities will consider the points that my hon. Friend has made. I shall also raise those points in future meetings with those bodies. If they would sign up contractually to play a role in the community, that would send out all the right signals. Of course, many of them willingly undertake such a role. They know of the importance of their grass roots and of the importance of community development through football.
My hon. Friend's proposals have value and I hope that they are picked up by the authorities. The players themselves can do a tremendous amount for the community in which they play and where their clubs are situated. They could learn from the example of the community work carried out by Leeds United. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.