Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2011.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning everyone, and welcome back.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. In early September we had an orderly and well informed debate on S4C and its funding. I have been approached by many people in Wales over the past few weeks who had believed that the Secretary of State will be responsible for the adequate funding of the channel, which was the basis for our debate on 15 September, but the Government apparently entered into an agreement with the BBC on 13 September, two days previously. New clause 63A(2)(d) of the 2006 agreement, which I have here, states that between 2015 and 2017 it will be for the BBC, not the Secretary of State, to determine how much funding it gives to S4C from the licence fee.

The Minister stated that the agreement had

“been laid in Parliament this afternoon.”––[Official Report, Public Bodies Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2011; c. 188.]

How can we have had a proper debate in the morning sitting at 9 am, and in the afternoon sitting at 1 pm, when many Members would not have been aware of the agreement or its contents? Will you advise me on how we may revisit that matter, Mr Amess?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Further to that point of order, Mr Amess. I made it clear to the Committee that the agreement had been laid before Parliament on the very afternoon on which the Committee sat. It was clear that the negotiations on funding, which had been ongoing, were concluded up to that point and that negotiations on governance arrangements were continuing between the BBC and S4C. The Committee cannot have been in any doubt about the state of play. Indeed, there was no way that the Committee could have had more information than was made available. I hope the Committee feels not only that I plainly set out the position, but that there was no further position that could have been set out at that stage.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have listened carefully to the point of order and to the Minister’s response, and I am not prepared to allow the matter to be reopened and debated now. The Committee has heard what the hon. Member for Arfon has said, and it is entirely up to him whether he wants to raise the issue on Report.

Clause 4 - Power to modify funding arrangements

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair after a short break in proceedings, Mr Amess, during which time various Opposition Members have been elevated or moved in some direction by their leader. It would be churlish if Government Members did not offer our congratulations—or commiserations—where appropriate.

Clause 4 confers on Ministers the power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of a body or office listed in schedule 4. The Government intend, for example, to reform the Drinking Water Inspectorate by allowing it to recover its costs from the water industry, which will bring that body in line with the existing principle that businesses that benefit from regulation should bear the cost of regulation, not the taxpayer. As with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, the use of clause 4 will be restricted by the conditions that we have discussed at length and will continue to discuss throughout our considerations. Those conditions include the provision in clause 8 that Ministers may only make an order that they consider

“serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.

A change of funding that would leave a body unable properly to carry out its public functions, for example, would be unlikely to meet those benchmarks, which provides an important reassurance to Parliament, to the bodies listed in schedule 4 and, ultimately, to the public we serve.

I further remind the Committee that no body or office may be listed in any of the Bill’s schedules unless Parliament has given its approval through the primary legislative process. The Government’s position is that ultimate decisions on the allocation of funding must rest with Ministers, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of public services by central Government and for public expenditure within their spending review settlements. It is also right that Ministers have the assurance that public money is being spent appropriately. In the case of most non-departmental public bodies, Ministers or Departments must be consulted by public bodies before they exercise certain financial powers, such as borrowing or capital expenditure.

We believe that the powers conferred by clause 4 on Ministers are entirely in keeping with that position and do not establish a new status quo, but rather reaffirm ministerial accountability for public expenditure and create the framework for a series of useful reforms to public bodies. On that basis I ask that the clause stand part.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I hope you had a good recess.

We do not wish to raise many issues about clause 4. We have some concerns about the impact on specific bodies, which would be better raised when discussing those bodies.

Schedule 4 - Power to modify funding arrangements: bodies and offices

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 21, line 14, leave out ‘Natural England’.

We want to ask the Minister why Natural England has been included in the clause. Natural England has important powers relating to awarding grants and designating areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Its role includes managing some national nature reserves, overseeing access to open country and, of course, regulating. The point is that it is an extremely important body, responsible for the administration of numerous grants schemes and frameworks that finance the development and conservation of the natural environment. There are some really big and important programmes, such as the environmental stewardship fund, the countryside stewardship scheme and so on.

Given Natural England’s important role in administering and awarding grants, it is important that the Committee know whether the Government plan to change that significantly. The body was established by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was a response to the widespread Haskins review. The powers it received came from the amalgamation of parts of the Countryside Agency, English Nature, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Rural Development Service. Natural England is extremely important in protecting our countryside. Is anything planned that would in any way diminish its countryside protection and management role?

I have questions that I would be grateful if the Minister answered. First, why is Natural England in the schedule? Secondly, do we have some guarantee that its powers will not be diluted, that its funding will not be substantially reduced and that it will still be able to produce independent reports such as the excellent “State of the Natural Environment 2008”, which was widely acknowledged as an important benchmark for countryside policy development? Finally, given that the funding could be changed at any time, how does the Minister intend to maintain the organisation’s independence, especially as there might be concerns about challenging the Government’s policy on the environment and the countryside if the result could be a reduction in funding?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady is doing exactly what she is required to do as an Opposition Member in questioning the Government’s intention in including Natural England in the schedule. However, it is a great pleasure to think that the reply I am going to give will satisfy her in every respect and that she has nothing to fear. The amendment, which I suspect is a probing one to clarify the situation, would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of Natural England.

Natural England has powers in the founding legislation and other enactments to make charges for services that it provides and in relation to its licensing functions, subject in some cases to making an order under section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is included in schedule 4 to enable an ambiguity in existing legislation to be removed. That ambiguity arises because the existing charging powers are worded in a way that gives rise to doubts over their scope. In particular, the existing powers enable an order to be made providing for a charge for issuing licences, but it is not clear whether the powers allow for a charge to be made when an application is received for a licence that is subsequently withdrawn or refused. Natural England is therefore included in schedule 4 so that the Secretary of State can amend and clarify existing legislation and thereby make the scope for charging powers clearer—nothing to do with the legitimate concerns the hon. Lady raised. This simply enables the Secretary of State to correct an ambiguity in existing legislation. I hope that clarifies the Government’s intention, and that on that basis the hon. Lady can withdraw her amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank the Minister for that response. If he is assuring the Committee that the proposed changes are concentrated on charging and licensing, I think we can be satisfied. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 5 - Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment 11, in schedule 5, page 21, line 22, at end insert ‘Chief Coroner, Deputy Chief Coroners, Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner and Deputy Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner.’.

The amendment deals with the office of chief coroner, and I say from the outset that I know this issue engages a lot of hon. Members, as well as many people outside the House. We need to give proper consideration in Committee to this serious matter.

The amendment will add the office of chief coroner to schedule 5, enabling the transfer of most of the office’s functions to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. I fully agree with hon. Members, Members of the other place and stakeholders about the need for urgent reform to the existing coroner service. I was one of those who argued strongly for that in the previous Parliament, and I was very frustrated by the delay in that reform. The amendment will allow us to deliver such a reform. We must address delays in the inquest process, remove the barriers that prevent inquests from being heard in the most convenient location for bereaved families, and ensure consistent training for and standards of service from coroners. The amendment allows for all such things to happen as quickly as possible.

I should clearly set out what the Government believe the debate’s terms are because, to be absolutely frank, there is a financial element. It is the view of the Ministry of Justice that we cannot afford to implement the office of chief coroner as such, and, therefore, we cannot reform the system without transferring the office’s functions and implementing key provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is imperative that the amendment be passed if there is to be significant, meaningful reform of the system.

As I have indicated, I am well aware of the strong feeling on this subject. The Government’s decision not to proceed with full implementation was not taken lightly. Establishing costs of £10.9 million and running costs of £6.6 million may not sound a great deal to some—however, it does to me—but against a backdrop of cost reductions of over 20% in the Ministry of Justice, new funding, which is what this would have to be, on top of existing budget commitments, cannot be found.

Concerns were expressed on Second Reading about the impact such changes would have on the independence of coroners. I refer hon. Members to the statement issued by the Government on 14 June, which confirmed that the Lord Chief Justice had approved the proposed transfer of statutory functions. If a function is judicial, Government will have no role in it. In practice, that will mean that the Lord Chief Justice’s functions include the power to direct coroners to conduct investigations and to make training regulations for coroners, including targeted training on specific areas of concern. The Lord Chancellor will take on non-judicial functions, such as maintaining a register of inquests lasting more than a year, and the power to designate medical practitioners for the purpose of performing post mortems. I hope hon. Members are reassured that the proposals will protect the judicial independence of coroners.

There are very few chief coroner functions that we do not propose to transfer, the main exception being section 40 of the 2009 Act, relating to appeals; that is because the costs of establishing and maintaining a bespoke appeal system are simply not justifiable. The existing systems of redress will remain, so that decisions can still be contested through judicial review or through application by, or under the authority of, the Attorney-General to the High Court. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner will continue to be made to the Office for Judicial Complaints, as would have been the case if a chief coroner were in place. Coroners will therefore continue to be accountable for their personal conduct.

Those avenues of redress are set out in the proposed charter for the coroner service, a draft of which we have just consulted on. The charter, which we intend to publish early next year, will set out for the first time the standards of service a bereaved family or other interested party can expect.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

The Government appeared to think that they knew better than thousands of people across Wales regarding the Welsh fourth channel, S4C. On the issue we are discussing, do the Government believe that they know better than hundreds of thousands of supporters of the Royal British Legion?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I hope that all those supporters—for whom I have a huge regard—understand exactly what the Government are proposing, and how we are improving the coronial system to deal specifically with the issues on which I and many other Members have campaigned for many years. We want to improve the coronial system and provide a better service for bereaved families of servicemen who have sadly lost their lives. This is not simply about military inquests; those of us who were engaged in the debates on the reform of the coronial system know that some important reforms need to be put in place. Very few of those are contingent on the post of chief coroner, and that is what we are examining in Committee today.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

The Minister mentioned that coroners will be accountable to someone. To whom?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Coroners will be accountable in exactly the same way as they currently are. There is a process of redress, which I have just explained, regarding their personal conduct—personal conduct remains with the Office for Judicial Complaints—and they are responsible for the conduct of the actual inquest by means of either the judicial review system or the application by the Attorney-General to the High Court. They are judicial posts, however, and they were never intended to be accountable to a politician or to the chief coroner.

I turn to the supervisory role of the chief coroner under the previous legislation, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about that role. Concerns have been expressed about leadership and oversight of the coroner system. Many people have misunderstood the intention of the previous legislation regarding the extent of the chief coroner’s powers in those areas. Statutory powers to direct coroners are limited to conducting investigations where there is no body, and transferring investigations to another coroner. We propose to transfer those functions to the Lord Chief Justice. The chief coroner would have been able to effect change within the coronial system only through influence and persuasion, because there was no hierarchical structure in the system under the previous legislation.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does the Minister not accept that much of the discussion about the role of the chief coroner centred on having an individual who is seen as leading a service and can drive through change in that role? Do the Government not accept that the chief coroner could have carried out that role?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Government are suggesting that that role can be carried out as effectively by the Lord Chief Justice at a lower cost to the Exchequer. As the hon. Lady knows, the Lord Chief Justice has widespread responsibilities and powers in the judicial system, and the coronial system is part of that wider family. He would take on those functions of the chief coroner, with whatever support he requires in that role. The important thing is the function, not the person. I have already mentioned the limited powers of direction that the previous legislation conferred.

There is another big issue, to which I think the hon. Member for City of Durham was referring: coronial policy, standards of service and the other administrative aspects of the coronial service. Concern was expressed about ensuring that the coronial system was equal to the task that it was set. Under the proposals, a new ministerial board will be tasked with advising on coronial policy, standards of service and the other administrative aspects of the coroner service. The board could, for example, review national statistics gathered from the coroner service to support an action plan for reform.

The quarterly publication of progress on inquests concerning service personnel killed in operations and exercises overseas provides a model of transparency. The board will be advised and supported by a bereaved organisations committee, which will be independently chaired and represented on the ministerial board itself. It will have a particular remit in monitoring the charter. That will provide the representatives of the bereaved with a direct line to Ministers.

The Government have listened to the concerns expressed in the other place and elsewhere, which is why we have amended our proposals to retain the office of chief coroner in statute, rather than pushing for outright abolition. That will allow Members here and in the other place to hold the Government to account on the proposed reforms.

The Government have also listened to Members of the other place and key stakeholders about the remit and composition of the new ministerial board and the bereaved organisations committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), has discussed the Government’s proposals with Members of both Houses and he is happy to continue that dialogue on the structure and remit of the ministerial board.

The amendment is a pragmatic and sensible solution to the need to reform in the current economic climate. I ask members of the Committee to consider what would happen if the amendment were not accepted: the office of chief coroner would remain on the statute book, but its functions would not be transferred. Without that transfer, it will not be possible to implement the main coroner provisions in the 2009 Act, leaving us with the worst possible outcome of little or no meaningful reform of the coroner system. That would be unacceptable to me, and I suspect from previous comments in Committee that it would be unacceptable to other Members, too. I therefore urge Members not to oppose the amendment today, but I welcome their views and will ensure that they are faithfully transmitted to the Ministry of Justice. However, the proposal deals with the reform and effectiveness of the coroner service, which is what we all want to see, without an excessive cost to the Ministry of Justice.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but—I am sure this is also the view of my hon. Friends—we have not been given the reassurance we may have expected. The issue is extremely difficult. I was in the House when we had many detailed discussions about the 2009 Act, and I am deeply concerned that the amendment will unravel substantial parts of it. Indeed, given the amount of cross-party agreement on that Act, I share the shock expressed by several organisations about the way the Government are looking at the whole coroner service.

I have several points to make and I apologise in advance for taking up the Committee’s time, but this is such a serious issue that we must examine it very carefully. A number of us find it quite extraordinary that the issue has come on to the agenda so soon after the 2009 Act was given Royal Assent, and before its main provisions have been implemented. We need an explanation from the Minister—one that goes beyond simply cost—as to why the Government are looking at the coronial service in this way.

As my hon. Friends have already pointed out, many organisations have written to members of the Committee and have been campaigning widely in the country about these proposals. There is huge concern and anxiety about what is being proposed and I should like some more details about the rather fragmented service that the Government will apparently create with the haphazard—that is the appropriate word—transfer of powers to different individuals and bodies. We have heard in detail from organisations that know better than any others what needs to happen to improve our coroner service and what is wrong with it at the moment. We have heard from Inquest, the British Medical Association, the Royal British Legion, Cardiac Risk in the Young, Victim Support and Mencap. Does the Minister feel he knows more than all of those organisations about the operation of the coronial system and what needs to happen to improve it? That is a legitimate question.

Those organisations seem to conclude that the framework that was approved by Parliament two years ago is still the best way forward. They point out that the 2009 Act was structured in a way that would help reduce the problems being experienced by those dealing with the coronial system. We need to understand that so that we can make a proper assessment of what the Government propose in the amendment. There was much debate before the 2009 Act and it was argued that

“the coroner’s system operates as a fragmented, non-professional assortment of individual coroners who operate with no compulsory training and little accountability. There are a growing number of coroners who adopt an efficient, modern approach to running inquests, but overall there is a ‘postcode lottery’ of service for bereaved families with good practice dependent on the approach of individual coroners.”

I do not think we accept that as being a suitable or appropriate style of behaviour for any service at the moment, and particularly not for one dealing with very sensitive issues and bereaved families. Delays of two or three years to the inquest process are not uncommon. That causes difficulties not only for bereaved people but for all those involved in the inquest process. Because of the huge delays, the opportunity to identify what went wrong at an early stage and perhaps use that information to prevent other deaths is missed, which is a major failing. Compounding that problem, the current system has no robust mechanism to monitor inquest findings or to take any follow-up action with the relevant public bodies. Indeed, that is an issue that comes up again and again in the comments made by the BMA and Inquest about what the Government propose in the amendment. An inquest will often have to take on board statutory bodies, such as the NHS, and do so in a quick and efficient manner. There is huge concern that the Government’s proposal will simply not allow the reform of the system that would enable inquests, where blame is attached to the NHS or other public bodies, to be dealt with quickly.

An excellent report by Mencap, “Death by Indifference”, documents the failings of the current inquest process, which lead to distress for families. We have seen such criticism across the board. A number of my constituents, and I am sure of other hon. Members, have found that that delay and the process add to, rather than ameliorate, their distress. There have been numerous reviews of the coroner service, such as those in 1936, 1965 and 2001. The most recent review by Tom Luce was instrumental in identifying the key problems and setting in train the campaign that led to the 2009 legislation. That review concluded that the coroner service was simply not fit for purpose. Among the major criticisms was the rather fragmented state of the service. My concern is that the Government’s proposal will take us back to that highly fragmented service, without the head of service having the ability or skills to drive through the change that is needed.

Interested organisations say that they want the 2009 legislation to be implemented; they oppose the Government’s plans, as we do; and they believe that the role of the chief coroner can be created at significantly lower cost than has been set out by the Minister. Will the Minister indicate whether discussions have been held with relevant charities and the organisations I have listed to see if a way forward can be found to satisfy all parties? I understand that at the moment those bodies do not accept the Government’s proposals as a satisfactory way forward. Given the widespread recognition of the need for a 21st-century coronial service, I believe they should not accept what the Government put forward in the amendment. It simply does not deliver on key aspects of the 2009 Act, in particular, having a cohesive service with an overview.

I appreciate that the Government have not sought to reinstate the coroner’s office into schedule 1. However, I do not think they should have introduced the service to schedule 5. That does not accord with the views expressed in the House of Lords. They had a very detailed discussion about the service and obviously voted with quite a substantial majority to remove it from schedule 1. In their debate, members in the other place emphasised the issue before us today. They pointed out that the fragmented and antiquated system that was in place before the 2009 Act was largely created by the Coroners Act 1887. I heard nothing from the Minister today that leads me to believe that we are getting a substantial updating of the service through the proposals.

The 2009 Act introduced reforms intended to give the chief coroner necessary oversight, but also responsibility for training, leadership of the coronial system and a place at the head of the appeals framework. I will come back to appeals later, but the Minister today made me sigh—I am sure Committee members heard me do so—when he said, “Well, the current arrangements will continue and people who are unhappy with the system can use judicial review.” That is not acceptable. I would very much like the Minister to reconsider the points he made about the appeals system, which I will mention later.

We know that the powers and responsibilities of the chief coroner under the 2009 Act were more extensive that the Minister outlined in moving the amendment. They would have had the power and responsibility to manage the coroners’ courts by allocating cases to deal with backlogs, delays or particularly complex cases. The Minister knows that a major criticism of the operation of the current system is about delays. A chief coroner would also have been able to put specific arrangements in place to cater for unexpectedly large numbers of deaths due to a major incident. Crucially, we need to know how that would be managed in the system if the Government’s proposals are passed.

We know that a major role of the chief coroner was to drive up standards in the system through training. We were awaiting guidance on how that could have been put in place with national standards of service being developed. We heard something about that in the Minister’s statement earlier, but I would certainly like to hear more about how training will be implemented and who will be responsible for ensuring that it happens and is of the necessary quality. The chief coroner would have been able to work with the Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice to make regulations and rules overhauling practice and procedures at inquests and setting how a role could be extended, for example. They would also be able to deal with appeals against coroners’ decisions, including on issues such as whether to investigate a death and any findings as to the cause of death.

The new appeals system, overseen by the chief coroner, would have offered families a route to resolve poor decision-making by coroners and spared them the challenge and expense of going through judicial review. Families and organisations feel strongly about that. Why have all the points made about the difficulty of using judicial review been largely ignored by the Government, because that appears to be the case?

The chief coroner also wanted powers to develop and operate an effective scheme for ensuring that recommendations about public safety and related warnings emerging from coroners’ investigations would be brought to the attention of those responsible for creating the relevant risks. Again, the Minister may need to tell us where that whole set of responsibilities will end up in the current system, should his proposals go through.

Last but not least—this is really important for improving the service—the chief coroner had powers and responsibilities regarding monitoring the performance of the coronial system, including through the provision of an annual report to the Lord Chancellor addressing, among other things, levels of consistency between coroner areas, the number of investigations that have been ongoing for more than a year, the identification of specific resource issues and any other matters that the chief coroner wishes to bring to public attention. The annual report would have been published and laid before Parliament, offering an opportunity for further scrutiny and debate. Again, we need an absolute assurance from the Minister about who will put that report together, and who will be responsible for ensuring that its contents are listened to and—this is crucial—acted on.

Many issues arise from the amendment. We have already dealt with the number of organisations that have concerns about the proposal, but I want briefly to summarise the main issues. The chief concern, which we have dealt with before, is the lack of independence in the proposals for dealing with the transfer of functions. As the Minister has informed us and as we know from elsewhere, it is proposed that most of the functions will transfer to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. As I said, we have not had a sufficient explanation from the Minister as to whether that really honours the spirit of the 2009 Act, or whether the degree of impartiality the chief coroner’s office was envisaged to have will be maintained.

We had several reports before the 2009 Act, including huge reports by Inquest such as “How the Inquest System Fails Bereaved People”. I will not detain the Committee by going through the many reports that pointed out that what was really important in order to satisfy public anxiety and bereaved families’ anxiety was that the system be independent from Government and able to hold them to account, and that it be able to respond to issues raised by bereaved families and organisations representing them. Reference was also made to the current lack of information for bereaved families about their rights, the frequent lack of understanding of religious or cultural practices and beliefs, and the huge variation in the quality and extent of post-mortems.

I am not clear from what the Minister said how the postcode lottery, which is a systemic failure of the current service, will be addressed. There is a growing body of evidence, which also underpinned the 2009 Act, that the system is failing the families of servicemen and women. The Royal British Legion has not welcomed the Government’s proposals, and the Government must seriously consider why their assurances are not being accepted by the Royal British Legion or many of the other bodies I have mentioned. Such bodies know better than anyone how the current system is failing the bereaved families of our servicemen and women. We need to unravel the system that the 2009 Act introduced very cautiously indeed.

I turn to the key questions that I want to put to the Minister. The 2009 Act put the bereaved and bereaved families at the heart of the process, but the current proposals do not appear to do so. Will the Minister comment on that? He is looking at me rather quizzically; however, some of the Government’s proposals deal with everyone who may come into contact with the coronial service, rather than specifically addressing the needs of bereaved families.

How will the coronial service be independent, and how will the driving force for change be created? How will the Government’s proposals lead to an increase in transparency and accountability? The Opposition, along with many organisations and families, question why the service is in the Bill at all, because it does not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. The Government’s proposals will not increase transparency and accountability, cut out duplication of activity or discontinue activities that are simply no longer needed, so why are they in the Bill at all? There are strong arguments in support of the opposite case. Under the 2009 Act, the role of the chief coroner was to bring transparency, accountability, judicial oversight and national leadership, and to prevent duplication.

The many people campaigning against the amendment conclude that it must be a question of cost, and cost only. The Minister went some way towards admitting that this morning. A number of people argue that it is false economy, because there will be huge costs to the public purse that have not been included in the Minister’s projections, never mind the human cost. It is important that we concentrate on the human cost as far as possible, but I will deal for a moment or two with the financial cost. The Minister’s figures do not include the huge cost of delayed or postponed hearings, repeat investigations and judicial reviews. If he is really suggesting that judicial reviews are the way forward for appeals, the huge cost of those must be included.

Many organisations have put serious points to the Minister regarding reducing office set-up costs, which are extraordinarily high. There is a strong case for reducing start-up costs and initial office sizes. It is also important that the Minister make it clear that it was not the intention of the 2009 Act to set up a largely administrative body. I am concerned by the Government’s comment that the Act did not include a need for an individual at the head of a service to spearhead reform, because that is not anyone else’s reading.

There is also huge disagreement about whether powers can simply be transferred to alternative bodies. As I said earlier, there is huge concern that we might end up with a system as fragmented as the current one. We need to be clear about which individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture and behaviour of coroners. From what the Minister has said, that does not seem to be anyone, and there is huge concern about that.

There is a whole set of concerns about the ministerial board. The widespread opinion is that the board cannot do the same job as the coroner’s office would have done, had the 2009 Act been implemented. The Minister said something this morning about trying to make the board more responsive. We welcome that, of course, and we would like the board to listen carefully to the experiences of those who are using the coronial service. Nevertheless, we do not know what powers the board will have to implement any changes that might come about from its listening exercise. We need much more information from the Government on how the board will operate, therefore, before we can agree that this might be a sensible change. We are not convinced at the moment.

All the organisations I have mentioned are critical of the draft charter, about which the Minister has told us a little more. There is huge and widespread consternation about the charter because we believe it will be monitored by the hard-pressed voluntary sector. I am not sure whether the voluntary sector considers having such a scrutiny role appropriate unless it can ensure that some changes occur as a result. We know that, in practice, charters often turn out to be rather toothless and do not give the protection people want from problems with the coroner service. That goes back to the point I made earlier: there is huge concern that the special place the 2009 Act gave to bereaved families will be lost in the new structures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who chairs the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, has written to me, and it is important that we address some of the group’s comments. It is concerned that the lack of leadership that will result from the Government’s proposals will mean that the locally based system, which has no national oversight, will continue. That will put at risk research into suicides. In particular, it will prevent lessons from quickly being learnt about what can lead to a huge rise in suicide rates—my hon. Friend has some experience of this issue—and the level of consistency between different coroners will not be improved by the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the all-party group has carried out a substantial review of those proposals, and I urge the Minister to look at the points it makes. In particular, it is concerned about the lack of consideration that will be given to ongoing and relevant research.

I want to return to the conversations the Minister has had with the many organisations that are concerned about the amendment. It would appear to the Opposition that they have put forward a sensible proposal to the Government. They describe it as “a pragmatic way forward” and wonder why the Government have not decided to concur with them in their new approach. They say that the office of the coroner can be set up with much lower costs. We heard nothing from the Minister earlier about how the costs of the office could be reduced substantially. They also say that the process that was implemented under the 2009 Act could be elongated so that costs would not be borne so quickly in the next few years. Again, we heard nothing from the Minister about why that would not be possible. Thirdly, they suggest that the appeals process could be delayed: instead of simply abolishing the appeals process that was due to be introduced under the 2009 Act, it could be implemented at a later date.

That seems to be a very sensible set of suggestions. The Minister needs to explain why the Government have decided to ignore completely the views of many organisations that deal with the sensitive issues around the operation of the coronial service and their proposals that would have delayed the implementation of the 2009 Act and seriously reduced the costs. We might have been able to get some consensus on that. I conclude my comments there for the moment as I know that other Members want to speak on this, but a significant set of points and challenges have been put before the Minister.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

I want to add my voice to those of the many organisations that have spoken about this matter and of my hon. Friend. They believe it is a mistake to abandon the reforms. They were an important and clearly significant step forward and—in the view of Inquest and the Royal British Legion, which my hon. Friend mentioned—were essential, not just to bereaved families, but to every one of us. I received testimony from those expert organisations and I have a huge amount of respect for them. Like many other members of the Committee, I have also received e-mails from bereaved families who have gone through this process, families for whom the system did not work. Their testimony is heartbreaking. It bears out the view of the last independent reviewer of the system that the system is not fit for purpose. It may work for some people but it simply does not work for far too many.

I was particularly struck by those e-mails, one of which related to the death of a child. As the Committee knows, I have an interest in issues relating to children, and although this is not my particular expertise, I was made aware of just how difficult it is when a child dies and how important this process is to families.

After reading into the subject and learning more about it, it became clear that child deaths require rigorous standards and strong national leadership, and I am concerned that the Bill breaks something up that would have been able to provide that. Although I welcome Ministers’ assurances about the creation of a ministerial board, I have worked with several ministerial boards in my time and I know that, by their nature, they are unable to do as thorough a job as the reforms propose. Ministers are extremely busy, so ministerial boards meet infrequently and can only devote a certain amount of time, energy and attention to something that frankly deserves more.

The 2009 Act, as we have heard from many expert organisations and my hon. Friend, was about fundamental, co-ordinated reform. It was not only about the office of chief coroner; it was about the office of chief coroner as part of a tightly knit system, rather than a piecemeal one. The frustration of Inquest and other organisations which have lobbied us about this matter is so clear because that Act was fought very hard for and this was such a significant step. Their frustration is borne out of the fact that the system is now being fragmented and broken up even though alternative proposals are on the table. We have all received a lengthy set of proposals from those organisations, proposing an elongated time scale for implementation and a full review of the costs.

As with many other bodies that we have discussed in Committee over the past weeks, the real concern is that the changes are happening so quickly. It took so long to put this framework together and to devise something that would really work and deliver a service that was of the standard that families who are bereaved expect from us, but it has taken such a short time to break that up and destroy it. That is the concern, and that is why such organisations as Inquest and the Royal British Legion are asking Ministers, as I am, to think again.

I am particularly concerned about what will happen now that the appeals system is not going ahead. When I worked in the voluntary sector, I was involved with taking judicial reviews on behalf of families. The circumstances were different but judicial review is a very lengthy process. When dealing with bereaved families, adding to the amount of time that it takes for them to get a proper answer and proper redress is simply not appropriate—nor is it ethical, frankly, to force families through a process that takes them that long to get closure. Furthermore, for too many families—the statistics bear this out—no redress at all is provided. Currently, we only see around 25 judicial reviews a year, even though thousands of cases come before us. This approach cannot be right.

I appreciate that Ministers have been given a very strong imperative—to cut costs and abolish public bodies—but this is simply not the right target for them, nor is it the right thing to do. I urge Ministers to listen to such organisations as Inquest and the Royal British Legion, and to take the provisions out of the Bill and discuss these matters further. They should really consider the proposals that are on the table, because how people are treated at such a difficult period matters to them, not only at that time, but for the rest of their lives. It matters, too, as part of a wider system that is so important to all of us. I urge Ministers to think again.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

It is a tremendous pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.

I rise with some trepidation. I know that many members of the Committee are more familiar with judicial matters than I am, and I am very aware that the Deputy Leader of the House spoke for his party on justice issues, and was also very familiar with the 2009 Act as it went through Parliament. I am told that there was cross-party support—I do not know whether that extended to the Liberal Benches—for the establishment of the office of chief coroner.

I wanted to speak on this amendment because I have received a considerable number of representations on this issue from the British Legion and people who supported its campaign. I want to say at the outset that I wholeheartedly support the British Legion and what it is trying to achieve. The previous system, in which there were inadequate arrangements for dealing with service personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, was simply not acceptable, and I entirely support the British Legion’s campaign. I want to focus, however, on the leadership role that was envisaged for the coronial service, and the framework that would have been put in place. I would like to raise a few concerns, which I hope the Minister can respond to.

I understand the broader point that the Minister has made about functions being transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, but there are deep worries that that will result in a fragmented service, as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Wigan have just outlined. As I understand it, the chief coroner’s office would have had the responsibility to drive up standards, issue guidance, set national standards of performance and report annually to the Lord Chancellor. Functions will be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, but some of those responsibilities will not be transferred. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House, but I am coming at it from this angle. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with the demographics of the city of Leicester. If they are not, they are more than welcome to come with me to Leicester, as long as they tell my constituents what a good MP I am and do not campaign for my opponents.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Speaking from personal experience, I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s city for a by-election in past times—not the by-election in which he was elected—and I have to say that it is a particularly fine city and a very pleasurable place to knock on doors. Sadly, not many people there were as supportive of my party as I would have liked.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

I would be delighted to visit Dover at some point in the future and knock on doors for my party there. The serious point is that I represent a city and a constituency that is rich in its diversity. Families have come to Leicester over many years from across the globe, from places such as India—from Gujarat and Punjab, mainly, but also from elsewhere in India—Malawi, Uganda, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Turkey and, in more recent years, from Afghanistan and eastern Europe. We are tremendously diverse, and we are proud of that. My city, and my constituency in particular, is graced by numerous mosques, Hindu temples, a Jain temple, gurdwaras, synagogues and many fine churches. We are a city of many faiths, and we are proud of that.

Being a city of many faiths brings with it many responsibilities, however. In particular, we have responsibilities for how we deal with the deceased, which sometimes differs from faith to faith. Members will appreciate that Muslim communities, for example, require burial to take place as soon as possible, and that particular practices for handling the body ought to be observed. Other communities require cremation to take place as soon as possible.

It should be said that in Leicester our coronial service is very good indeed. Our hospitals are good at dealing with such issues. We have many years of experience, and a great deal of understanding and respect has built up between the different communities about how such issues are dealt with. When I talk to groups—the Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire is based in my constituency—they are very welcoming of how we deal with such issues in Leicester, but they express concerns about how burial, cremation and so on are dealt with in other parts of the country. They feel that such issues vary from district to district. Pushing for that universal level of service is therefore something that would be appropriate for the chief coroner’s office to do. Was it not envisaged that the chief coroner’s office would lead in issuing guidance and disseminating best practice on how to deal with various faith groups and their burial needs? Where will that type of function now fall?

In a written ministerial statement in June, the Lord Chancellor said:

“As the functions to be transferred are limited, and the Office of Chief Coroner not filled, neither the judge nor any other individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 66WS.]

So who will be responsible? I appreciate that the Minister has mentioned the ministerial board, which will be supported by a bereaved organisations committee, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has said, Ministers are busy people, and I am not sure how often the board is envisaged to meet. I know that Ministers sit on many Committees. I have worked for Ministers and I know how busy their private offices can get. I am not making a partisan point, but to what extent will the ministerial board realistically be able to deal with issues and take them up—obviously not day to day, but throughout the year—in the way that a staffed chief coroner’s office could?

I have an example of another issue that needs to be raised. Faith groups, and, to be fair, also people of no faith, sometimes have an objection to invasive autopsies. Research, which happens to be from the university of Leicester, is being done on imaging techniques that could replace invasive autopsies. That is a good example of something a chief coroner’s office could look at, to see whether such techniques could replace invasive autopsies and be rolled out across the whole coronial service. That is what groups in my constituency are arguing for, and it is the sort of issue that a chief coroner’s office could examine and pursue. I am not sure whether the ministerial board, meeting three or four times a year or whatever, would have the time to do that. I will be happy to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

I understand that the ministerial board will be supported by a bereaved organisations committee. Will faith groups be represented on that committee or on the ministerial board?

There is a broader argument about costs, and I concede that the costs outlined by Ministers do seem stark: start-up costs are £10.9 million, and running costs are £6.5 million. Of the start-up costs, £4 million is for IT and £2.5 million for recruitment, publications, additional coroners and transition costs. It must be said, however, that there is a great body of people out there who think that those costs are not credible. I have worked in government and I am not sure whether they are credible. There must be a better way of funding the scheme. The Paymaster General is fond of boasting that he has managed to negotiate better deals on Government procurement. Perhaps the Justice Secretary should let the Paymaster General loose on this deal, because there must be a better way of funding it.

I reiterate what my hon. Friends have said: are there not concerns that, because of the system that is being put in place, the number of judicial reviews will actually end up costing more? The British Legion has put forward a set of proposals for implementing the reforms much more cheaply. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. I notice from yesterday’s Hansard that the Secretary of State for Defence said that he had some sympathy for the proposals, although he did go on to dismiss my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who raised the issue, by saying that they would cost too much. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that, too.

This is a serious and delicate issue that affects people in all kinds of ways. I mentioned how it affects people from faith groups in my constituency. It is also perhaps worth reiterating what the director of the British Legion said on hearing about the proposal:

“We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families… The Legion campaigned long and hard as part of its campaign to honour the Military Covenant for reforms to the inquest process—to guarantee bereaved Service families a modern, thorough and transparent investigation. The Chief Coroner’s Office and role are absolutely central to this.”

I agree with the British Legion, and I ask the Minister to reflect on its remarks and withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of what, I repeat, is an extremely serious issue, and one that we have to get right.

Before I get to the serious business, I must say that I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Leicester. I learned of my appointment to my present post while I was there. Rather disconcertingly, I was at the ground of Leicester Tigers, who had inexplicably just beaten Bath in the play-offs of the rugby premiership, and was surrounded by Tigers fans roaring their support for their team when I received a call from the Prime Minister, which was difficult to hear in the circumstances. A little bit of history, my personal history, took place in Leicester South.

Let us move on to more serious matters. The essence of the issue is not the role of the chief coroner, which we are discussing today, but the package of reforms. For many years, many of us have argued for reforms to get the coronial system working better—for bereaved families and for people involved with the system—and to make the system more coherent and comprehensive across the country. Key to that are the changes to working practice, standards of service, advice on training and the coherence of the system. We must get those in place, which is why I, among many others, was so impatient when, year after year following the review of the coronial service, we were waiting for the legislation. The legislation never happened and continued to never happen—then eventually, in 2009, we got the Bill. I maintain that it is the reforms to the coronial system that are important, not the office of chief coroner.

What are we actually discussing? We are discussing not the destruction of the raft of proposals nor a reversal of Government policy, but whether, under the current proposals, the role of the chief coroner is best accomplished by the Lord Chief Justice, assisted by a High Court judge with delegated powers for that purpose, or by a High Court judge with powers given under the legislation for that purpose. That is the distinction. It is a narrow distinction, but one with a cost. The cost of setting up a self-standing body for the administrative functions, rather than using the existing offices of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, is considerable.

The hon. Member for Leicester South asked about the costs. He raised an eyebrow at the itemised costs, and I can exclusively reveal to him that I did, too. They were worked out not by the present Government but by the previous Government in their impact assessment of the 2009 Act. If the costs are invalid now, they were invalid then. I trust the Ministry of Justice has made a sensible assessment of the costs of implementing a proposal that it wants to work effectively.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

Nobody is arguing that no costs are involved in setting up an office of the chief coroner; the point, made by several Opposition Members, is that costs are involved in not setting up that office. A number of us are concerned about the great disparity between what the Government are saying—whichever Government worked out those costs—and what Inquest and the Royal British Legion are saying. That is why we are asking for this provision to be taken out—to give some time to think again and see whether we can reach some form of resolution.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I hope we can reach a resolution, and the hon. Lady is making a perfectly valid point. However, I should point out that the idea that there has been no discussion with the organisations involved is so far from the truth as to be unreasonable. What the Committee has before it today is the result of continuing discussion and dialogue with those bodies, and we have taken on board a lot of suggestions that arose from those discussions. I accept that they are still not satisfied with the outcome, but those discussions will continue. The door is not closed, and I know that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will want to continue to discuss the details of the proposal and whether it can be improved, within the cost context we are discussing. That is the point we cannot get away from as a Government: there is a very substantial cost here, and it is not clear how that can be met, except by trying to provide the best possible outcome within the cost framework.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I wish to press the Minister on the issue of cost. We accept that the initial costings were made according to what is desirable in setting up the chief coroner’s office, rather than—in these very straitened times—what is absolutely essential. We would have liked a detailed breakdown of the limited costs that are essential in the setting up the coroner’s office, and it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to set that out at some stage.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I will certainly do what I can, with colleagues from the relevant Departments, to provide as much information as possible. A lot of these costs have already been put before the House, with a detailed breakdown in the existing proposals. What we must examine is whether there are any variations from that.

I will come back to the alternative option a little later, but first I need to address a number of points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham. She talked about the need for the bereaved to be at the centre of the process. That is absolutely the thrust of what is proposed. There is no difference. The hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned that there was all-party agreement on the direction of travel, and indeed there was. We were very clear that the coronial system needs radical reform—that is the basis upon which the previous legislation was founded. Part of that process is making sure that the voice of the bereaved is heard very clearly. That is why the proposed set-up—the ministerial board, advised by the committee of organisations for the bereaved—is absolutely crucial. It will act as a sounding board for precisely those concerns about the way the bereaved have so far been treated as part of the process. Those are concerns we all share.

The hon. Member for City of Durham also mentioned independence. There could be no more independent person in the country than the Lord Chief Justice. That been demonstrated time and again—by the present post-holder and his predecessors—and I am not sure I can find a better example. The Lord Chief Justice has both the status and the necessary level of judicial independence to ensure that their voice is heard. That, in my view, is crucial to the process. Judicial independence is absolutely guaranteed by what is now proposed; it is arguable that it was not under the original proposals. As a result of listening to what was said in the other place, we have come back with a measure that retains a clear strand of independence, and that should be recognised.

The hon. Lady talked about reports learning lessons, and this is a key area in which we have to ensure best practice. At the moment—and this will continue—all reports from a coroner are sent to the Lord Chancellor. That will still happen; moreover, it will be enshrined in legislation and order; it will be published and sent to all those who need to know about those reports. That includes the National Offender Management Service, the prisons and probation ombudsman, the ministerial council and the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody. That process is clearly there.

If the hon. Lady is saying that under the previous proposals the chief coroner would have had an enforcement role, that was not the case. It was not in legislation and will not be under the present arrangements. That was not part of the role of the chief coroner. Some people assumed that there would be a supervisory role for the chief coroner that simply never existed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am listening carefully to the Minister. What assurances can he give that the process will be timely? Under current legislation, it was envisaged that reports would be undertaken speedily and in a way that could influence practice quickly enough to have an effect on similar deaths.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not think I am being presumptuous, as regards the Department, in saying that I am sure that will be the case. That is a key aspect of the reform process now under way. We have already talked about the leadership role, which will be shared by the Lord Chief Justice, in terms of the judicial aspects of the coronial system, and the ministerial board. I heard what the hon. Member for Wigan said about ministerial boards, and I have some sneaking sympathy with her suggestion that there might be an overload on ministerial time. However, there cannot be a better level of responsibility if one wants things done. If one wants to drive through changes in practice, there is executive power in place. That is the importance of the ministerial board, provided it gets the right advice in a timely way. That is what I hope will be achieved by the support systems that are being put in place by the bereaved organisations committee, which I am sure will not sit around twiddling its thumbs waiting for something to happen. It will have a very active voice.

We do not yet have the composition of the committee, which partly answers the hon. Member for Leicester South. There is no reason why that committee should not include faith groups. Irrespective of whether it does, one of its functions is to report on the charter, and that is particularly sensitive to the different needs of faith groups in dealing with deceased people. That function is inherent in what it does. The chair of the bereaved organisations committee will be independent and a strong advocate for the sort of reforms that we all want to see.

The issue of appeals involves a financial decision. Setting up a bespoke appeals process is an expensive option—one that Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have decided cannot be justified in present circumstances. Not having the appeals system will not increase the number of judicial reviews, which will remain reasonably constant. One factor that might be involved is that improved information will be available to “users” of the inquest system. They will have better information on how to seek redress if they feel that it is appropriate to do so, which is an improvement on the present system. We do not expect an increase in the number of judicial reviews as a result of not introducing a new level of appeal.

Comments have been made about the charter. It is a draft, which is under consideration, and we are open to the views of organisations that have an interest. The Department will listen to any criticism of the charter. It must be borne in mind that it refers to the current coroners system, and it will have to be revised entirely as we drive through the reforms to the coroners system to make it better. The charter relates to what can be achieved under the current arrangements, rather than to what we hope will be a very much improved system under future arrangements.

I have not yet addressed the question of whether there is a low-cost alternative. I reject the idea—I invite the Committee to do likewise—that we can deal with the economic situation by simply delaying reforms. I do not want these reforms delayed any further. Delays in, and malfunctioning of, the coronial system causes damage to families and individuals, which we cannot allow to persist, so we need to drive the reforms forward. Extending the time period would not be a satisfactory outcome. We need to look at how we can achieve the reforms in the shortest possible time scale with the least cost, because doing so is in all of our interests. Of course, the money that is saved goes into ensuring that the system is more effective. That supports the Government’s view that for the reforms to be timely and effective, the role of the chief coroner—which we do not propose to abolish—should be taken on by the Lord Chief Justice, assisted by a High Court judge.

The support of the ministerial board, with the assistance of the bereaved organisations committee, and the powerful independent chairman will act as a sounding board for the concerns that have been expressed. Consideration is taking place—perhaps I might mention this in light of the amendment made to the Armed Forces Bill last night in another place—of how the performance of the coroners system, in respect of not only military inquests but all inquests, can be properly reported to Parliament, so that we have a much clearer handle on what is going on.

The system consists of a number of disparate individuals; coroners for each county are separate judicial figures, and nothing in this world will dragoon them all into the same pot, but they have a very important role to play that needs to be undertaken with a great deal of care, consideration and expertise. Our proposals allow the necessary reforms to be driven through. I repeat: if the Committee votes against the amendment, it is effectively voting not to have the raft of reforms. I appreciate that there are arguments, which I do not diminish, to be had outside and within the House about whether what is proposed is the best solution, but the idea that one can achieve that best solution by not accepting the amendment, which allows the chief coroner’s role to be substantive, albeit carried out by the Lord Chief Justice, would lead to a retrograde step. I urge the Committee to reject that view and support the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Thank you, Mr Amess, for allowing such extensive debate on this very serious issue. I find it astonishing that not one Government Member other than the Minister sought to speak on the subject. We will not push the amendment to a Division today, not because we are in any way convinced by what he said, or because we find his remarks reassuring, but because I would like to give him another chance to speak to all the organisations that are concerned about the proposals, as well as to some of the individuals who have raised concerns with us. We will see what comes back on Report, and if we are not satisfied then with the progress that the Government have made, we will deal with that then.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. Dialogue will, of course, continue—not with me, but more effectively with Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, because that is the key area. I give her my assurance that my colleagues in that Department will be happy to continue the dialogue with all the people who are interested in and concerned about this area, so that we can find the best possible solution and present it to the House.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I beg to move amendment 36, in schedule 5, page 21, line 24, at end insert ‘Dover Harbour Board’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in schedule 5, page 22, line 11, at end add—

‘2 Sections 22(1) and 22(2)(a) do not apply to an order under section 5 which provides for the functions of the Dover Harbour Board to be transferred to another person.’.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Amess.

Amendment 37 is largely consequential on amendment 36, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, and for East Surrey. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who has responsibility for civil society. He has been a powerful champion and advocate of civil society, the big society and the extraordinarily far-reaching programme that the Prime Minister has set out for a new flowering that will enable decentralisation and localism, and let the whole big society—social enterprises, mutuals and charities—to play a larger role, so that it is not just the third sector but, as the Prime Minister likes to say, the first sector.

The Cabinet Office has been doing a fantastic job as an advocate in Government for this new way of thinking. Nevertheless, it does not always get its own way, so I have moved an amendment to smooth things along for the Dover harbour board, and to assist it in its positive dialogue with the Department for Transport. That is another great Department that is fixed in its view of the world. It is sometimes a little bit binary when one would hope it was hexadecimal. I tabled the amendments to further discussion on the future of the port of Dover, which is important to my constituency of Dover.

I should explain the background, and the mischief that the amendment seeks to address. There is currently a proposal to privatise the port of Dover under the Ports Acts 1991, which I am sure, Mr Amess, you recall in minute detail. That Act essentially enables trust ports to be privatised. It is a matter of major concern to my constituents. There is a voluntary privatisation mechanism in section 9 of that Act, and a compulsory privatisation mechanism in section 10. The port of Dover, or the Dover harbour board, as it is officially known, has put it to the Department for Transport that it would like to privatise itself under section 9 of the Ports Act so that it can find someone to buy it, whereupon it will become a private company, like so many ports in this country that have taken that route.

The Ports Act 1991 was a great Act of its time. It was fine for two decades ago, but the country has moved on. This old, stale debate about nationalised or privatised, or nationally owned assets or privately owned assets—the binary world of 20 years ago—has become more nuanced in the post-bureaucratic age, the age of the information revolution. That is because there is a greater sense of knowledge—knowledge that is not just locked up in London in the civil service or big business, but available to everyone across the nation. It could be summed up as “We know as much as they do.”

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee why Dover was not privatised following the 1991 Act? Were there particular arguments in respect of Dover or other ports in that strategically important part of the UK?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is an important and interesting question. In the early 1990s, there was a proposal to privatise Dover under the Ports Act process. My predecessor, David Shaw, fought against the proposal, and against a Minister who was very determined to privatise the port of Dover. There was then a reshuffle, and as is the way of these things, the new Minister took a slightly different, more nuanced approach, so the issue was put to one side.

There was a change of Government in 1997, as most of us will recall. At that point, the proposal was put on ice. Why did it pop up again under the previous Government—a Labour Government who were not in favour of privatisation? Under a so-called “modernising trust ports” programme, they asked all trust ports in the UK to review their status. Each trust port did so and came forward with proposals. The idea was to improve their governance. Dover, however—a harbour port that is unique in many ways—decided to put forward a proposal not to improve its governance, but to privatise itself. It concluded that, under the “modernising trust ports” review, it wanted to sell itself off under section 9, and that was what it put to the Government.

The previous Government could have killed the situation off at that point. Unfortunately, the timing was bad, at least for the people of Dover, because this happened immediately after the financial crisis, and suddenly the previous Government were in a very difficult financial position. I will not go into the issue of blame or how the situation came about, as that would not be helpful, and is not relevant to this discussion. Given the financial crisis, the previous Government put together a report called the “car boot sale”—officially known as the operational efficiency report—and put Dover into it, to sell off a number of assets to plug a hole and give confidence to the markets, so that we would be able to borrow. There was a coalescence of timing: on the one hand, there was a port that suddenly wanted to sell itself off, and on the other, the Government were in need of rapid cash, and that led to a situation in which a voluntary privatisation process was suddenly under way.

All that took place immediately before the general election. A key plank of my personal manifesto to the people of Dover was that I did not want to see a privatisation like this go ahead, as it was manifestly not in the interests of the community. The idea had been tested by my party at the previous general election, and the voters gave a clear response, showing what they thought about selling off the port of Dover. I therefore took the position that there would be a better way.

Having won the election, I put forward an alternative proposal, and I moved the amendment to ensure that there is greater consideration, so that rather than having a vanilla privatisation process, there can be reform under the Public Bodies Bill. The process can then take place under the reform mechanism, so that instead of the old-fashioned, 1980s approach of “just sell it off if it’s not bolted down—and possibly even if it is”—an approach that the previous Government continued—we can adopt a more nuanced approach, including the ideas of social enterprise and mutuality that Prime Minster has been advancing.

Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)

Can my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I know that the schedule gives the Minister power to modify or transfer functions, but that is not compulsory, is it? The decision is still in the Minster’s hands; the schedule simply enables what my hon. Friend is proposing to occur.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly right, and his point is brilliantly made. The Bill sits across the political landscape rather like a superstructure. It does not change the landscape at all. If the amendment were accepted, it would be an additional tool in the tool bag of the Secretary of State for Transport. It would not in any way prevent him from proceeding under the Ports Act 1991, if that was what he wanted to do, and if that was the thrust of policy in his Department, irrespective of the ambit of the wider Government policy and vision for social enterprises, mutuals, the big society and community engagement. It would not in any way detract from the Secretary of State’s powers under the Ports Act 1991.

I hope that if the Minster accepts the amendment, it would send a positive signal to the Department for Transport that it should think a little harder and look at the possibilities for ensuring greater community engagement with the port. Most Members here do not have ports in their constituencies, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, the Whip, who is not permitted to speak in this Committee. However, I assure the Committee that all Members who have ports in their constituency wrestle with this issue: on the one hand, a port is a business, but on the other, it is also a social beast, to which communities attach. Communities have concern for and an affinity with their port, and desire a level of engagement. A port is a key asset. It dominates the whole coastline of a coastal town. People engage with it very readily, want a say about it, and want it to be part of the community.

Dominic Raab (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

My hon. Friend has talked about attachment, and the community support for the proposal. Could he give the Committee some sense of the consultation process that he has been through, and of the support in the community for this specific proposal?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Let me turn to that key question: how does the community of Dover and Deal, which I represent, feel about the proposal? As a Member of Parliament in a marginal seat who believes in engaging widely with constituents, I have been in dialogue with them, and have put the proposal to them. Following public meetings, we had a referendum on the issue in Dover. It is not possible to have a district-wide referendum until the Localism Bill has passed through the House. However, reading my law books and dusty tomes, I discovered that there was a provision in the Local Government Act 1974 for a parish poll. I discovered that while it was intended for villages with about 500 people and a dog and maybe a horse—

Sam Gyimah (Conservative, East Surrey)

And a cat.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Indeed; a cat, and a variety of other animals that cannot vote. I realised that the rules pertaining to parish councils also applied to town councils. One could offer a statutory referendum to a town with a properly constituted town council, which Dover has. The rules are slightly odd, as it is quite an old Act: voting can take place only between 4 o’clock in the afternoon and 9 o’clock at night, and there can be no postal or proxy votes. Despite that, turnout in the referendum was higher than at the previous district council elections. The result has been described by colleagues as North Korean: 98% of voters were in favour of what we call the people’s port—the community mutual social enterprise option—whereas 2% were against, and a small fraction spoiled their papers. The reason why it was North Korean rather than Saddam-Hussein Iraqi was that we did not get more than 100% of the vote.

The serious point is the strong, unanimous community endorsement. I received a number of angry e-mails from constituents in other villages and towns who could not vote, demanding to have a say. I had to explain that the referendum could only be in one town, and to have multiple referendums would cost a lot on their parish rates. Following a public meeting of about 500 people, the people of Dover were prepared to hold the referendum as part of the process. They understood that it would cost £15,000. They were up for that, because they felt it was such an important issue for the future of the town and the constituency as a whole. They wanted to have that say and send that message to the Government. That was classic, strong, powerful community engagement. They wanted to communicate, and to say to Government, “This is the way the community wants to go.” They did not want the port sold off to the French or whoever; they wanted it to be owned by the community—to have the community right to buy. They wanted the chance to own and operate their port.

When one thinks of the community right to buy, one thinks of the village shop, the post office or the pub. A port that is worth north of £200 million is a little more substantial. As a strong advocate of the big society, decentralisation and localism, I would argue there should be no difference in principle if a credible, sensibly funded proposal is put together to enable that to happen.

Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)

I commend my hon. Friend on the amendment, his general erudition, and the support for this project. Were Watford a port, which I have always argued it should be, I would do exactly the same. My hon. Friend is very fond of the word “nuance”. I have made a note to use it in future interventions and speeches, because I like the nuances of it. Does he perceive the social enterprise as being on the public or private side, if it were a binary choice? Having seen the proposal, it seems to me that significant amounts of private capital are involved. Would he accept that, whether it is a social enterprise or not, the entity providing the private capital needs exactly the same kind of return that it would get if the project were private?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which gives me an opportunity to explain. First, let us assume that a person owns a house and has a mortgage, which most of our countrymen do. That is borrowing, but who owns the house—the person or the bank? Economically, it is clearly the bank, but in fact the person owns the house, and feels that it is theirs. They feel much more strongly engaged with it, Conservative Members would say, than a tenant would be. Home ownership is essential to their sense of control and engagement. It is up to that person what colour they paint their house, whether they do renovations, and how the garden looks. They end up with the attributes of ownership, and are not simply watching the house. If someone else owns the house, or the person sells the house, it is no longer anything to do with them—a point that goes to the heart of the community social enterprise proposal.

The community would be the owners of the port. They would not sit there having to watch it, as they would if remote directors—either appointed by the Department for Transport in London, or responsible to other people far away—were appointed. In either case, the community does not get a say. In this case, the community would, with the attribution of ownership.

My hon. Friend raised a point about returns. The essence of his argument was that the cost would be the same. As we both know, there is a big difference between the return demanded by an equity investor and that demanded by a debt investor. An equity investor will want up to 8% or 10% real, whereas a debt investor will want something closer to 2% real. That goes to the heart of why the ferry companies—the port users—are so enthusiastic about the scheme. A key aspect of it is that it would be funded by bonds put in the market in the City of London. That fundraising has effectively been agreed in principle, subject to the usual due diligence, to the tune of £200 million. There would be a very low rate of return, and if the facility has a low rate of return—or a very low cost rate for the investment in it—the cost that the facility needs to charge to its users or customers is lower, too.

That is another major issue for the community, because a whole load of ferry companies are deeply concerned about the price path that the harbour board wants to put in place. The board wants to increase prices by a third over the next three years, at a time when ferry companies are starting to recover and see trade and revenues stabilise after a difficult and painful downturn. If the price path and mooring fees rise by a third, the companies will be put under considerable financial pressure and strain, which will result in them having to look for savings, particularly through jobs. That directly concerns my electorate, because the ferry companies are responsible for about 5,000 local jobs. As a constituency MP, the challenge to which I am trying to rise is that of protecting the jobs and businesses of my electorate. I want to ensure that their costs are not increased, and that people are not put out of work unnecessarily. That can be achieved simply by using a different form of financing, building on the community mutual.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to community ownership in terms of shops, pubs, and so on. I point him to an example in my constituency, the Galeri arts centre, which cost about £5 million to build. By European standards, at least, it is a first-class arts centre, built in a town of 10,000 people. The crux of the matter as far as Galeri is concerned—I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on this point—is its accountability to the local community. How does he see the development in Dover achieving that direct accountability to the community?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point. Accountability is a central part of this. In trying to put together a proposal that squares the circles, I have had to do my best to protect the competitive position of the port users, the ferry companies, which are in competition with Eurotunnel. Secondly, I have had to address my constituents’ deep concerns, patriotic as they are, about the idea of their port, as they see and feel it, being sold off overseas. That is a deeply felt, emotional position. Thirdly, I have had to ensure that there would be regeneration—a subject to which I will return in a moment.

I will now address the point raised by the hon. Member for Arfon on accountability. If a mutual, or any social enterprise, is to engage with the community and to work properly, the governance and accountability issue needs to be solved. The question is: what do we do? How do we work out the solution to that problem? First, there are the bond markets, which want to ensure that, as they would put it, the lunatics do not take over the asylum. It is always the fear of the money markets that, somehow, mad community groups will take over and wreck their investment. To my mind, that is not a real concern, but a generalised fear. I do not see it as a real concern because, back in the day, building societies were mutuals. Theoretically, the people who had money in building societies could impose boards of directors that might have behaved in wild and outlandish ways. Some investors, and the Government, are concerned that unqualified people will take over and do rash things.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for local community ownership of the port of Dover. Does he acknowledge that in this country there have been many interesting methods of community ownership and housing ownership? Much earlier in the 20th century, well before I was born, the National Union of Mineworkers instigated a mortgage scheme in Wales so that colliers could buy their own home. There are many interesting examples from the co-operative tradition, which is one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman’s comments are so interesting.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Of course the trade union movement was, and is, a co-operative movement. From time to time, Government Members do not agree with the positions taken by the leaders of that movement. I wish those leaders would concentrate more—and more of their subscriptions—on helping their membership, rather than running around organising campaigns, but that is a political issue rather than the substance when it comes to trade unions and the important role that they can play.

The history of building societies does not lie in the financing houses that they have become. They built houses, one by one, on a mutual basis. Housing associations, like the housing association movement, are, in many cases, mutual and social enterprises. They are responsible for substantial amounts of money and investment. If they were private and listed, the biggest housing associations, such as Places for People, would be on the FTSE 100. One might think that mutuals could be taken over by people in communities who will do crazy things, but many mutuals are large and serious businesses, with serious corporate governance and serious accountability.

How, then, do we solve the accountability conundrum? The way to solve it would be to ensure that there is ownership while ensuring that, as with housing association financing, the business plan is effectively locked. There would be undertakings and an agreement between the port users and the port that financing and services would be provided in a particular manner that would ensure that the port has the funds to service the interest and make investments, as agreed under a framework agreement with the port users. In return, the port users would underwrite the revenues of the port, which would underwrite the interest on the bonds and would give the port a lower rate of interest and a higher credit rating. In essence, to use City-speak, the port would become a non-statutory contractually regulated utility. Effectively, the port would become like a water company.

Sam Gyimah (Conservative, East Surrey)

What assurance does my hon. Friend have that the financing for the community to take over the port, and the working capital, will be available? It is interesting to hear that he has obviously had extensive discussions, but what assurance does he have that that financing will actually be available when the time comes?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

That is a very good question. How do we know that an indicative pledge will turn into a real and funded one? As my hon. Friend will know, having been to the City of London and spent time with the chief executive of the London stock exchange, the London stock exchange was excited about the idea of having bonds on its exchange and excited about the port of Dover—just as it was excited about the recent retail bond issue by Places for People—so that it can create a quoted market. Places for People’s retail bond issue went exceptionally well. In the same way, I think that the port of Dover would have no problems getting away bonds to raise the purchase price to buy it off the Government, for the simple reason that we have safe, strong revenues and a secure return. That would enable that issue to take place, and I would expect it to be underwritten by the financial advisers. They assure me that that issue could be underwritten without difficulty.

I should add that this is not a fly-by-night proposal but a serious and substantial one. Substantial financial advisers in the City have been involved with it. The president of the People’s Port Trust is Sir Patrick Sheehy, who used to run British American Tobacco. Not everyone here will approve of tobacco companies quite as much as I do, as a smoker from time to time, but it is a substantial business and he is a substantial businessman who brings immense credibility. Likewise, Algy Cluff, who opened up the North sea to oil exploration, is a director. Serious and substantial people who live locally are directors of the People’s Port Trust.

The idea is that the trust is a mutual, and anyone can join for £10. The members of that mutual vote for half the board, and half the board is made up of stakeholders, local councillors, myself—or my successor; the Member of Parliament for Dover at the time—the chamber of commerce and a say for the port users. That is how that side is organised. The proposal is that one third of the directors of the operational port company will be appointed by the People’s Port Trust. One third of the directors will be appointed by port users, so that they have a say in the boardroom, and the other third would be the management of the port.

We would never get a situation where the community would be able suddenly to do wild and wacky things, because they would never have a majority for it. They would always be outvoted by the port users or the management. We would never get a situation where the port users would try to skew the business plan to suit their interests, because the management and the community would prevent that. In that way, by having everyone in the boardroom working together positively in a partnership for the improvement of the port, we would have sound, secure financing. Everyone would have a say, everyone would be involved and the community would retain overall ownership. I hope that that would give the community a bounce of confidence, because the one thing that Dover needs, as a town with a lot of deprivation, is more confidence. A bounce of confidence would have powerful and important economic effects, and we all understand that confidence is key to driving the economy forward.

Returning to regeneration, which is the third leg that I mentioned earlier, the business plan will put £50 million aside for the regeneration of the Dover seafront. Why does that matter? We have a lovely seafront. Half of it is what is called the eastern docks, which are operational in nature, with ferries going in and out majestically in the shadow of the white cliffs. The western side, however, was decimated 60 years ago in the war. It was very beautiful but it has never quite been rebuilt, so it is all a bit of a muddle. It is a cross between spaghetti junction, with roads going round lifted helter-skelter in the air, and buildings that are half falling down, isolated and island-like.

Having that regeneration fund of £50 million would kick-start the regeneration of the western side. One might ask why that has not been done before. Why has the harbour board over the past 60 years not done something to improve the western docks area? The reason is two-fold. First, it was not its core interest. It is interested in pushing ferries in and out, not in what the community is concerned about, which is the regeneration of the seafront. Secondly, it would find it difficult to raise the funds to do so, because—we are told—a port’s borrowing is scored under the public sector borrowing requirement, because all the directors are appointed by the Government. That means that the port theoretically cannot borrow, because it is an emanation of the state and therefore it scores as public borrowing. The other problem is that as an emanation of the state it is also hidebound by EU procurement rules. The advantage of having a community mutual, as opposed to a current trust board, is that there are no EU procurement issues or PSBR borrowing restrictions; investment is then possible. That is also the advantage of privatisation—the more fleet-of-foot side.

The difficulty of privatisation is the continued sense of alienation that has dogged Dover for the past 50-odd years. People feel very alienated from the port; they feel the harbour board does what it pleases and does not work in partnership with its port users or the community. A vanilla privatisation would not change that. That comes to the heart of the difficulty that faces me as a constituency MP: how to fire up that community engagement and regeneration; how to protect those jobs in the ferry industry and port users; and how to foster a greater sense of partnership between the businesses, between the port and the community. The proposal of the people’s port is the essence of the big society, social enterprise, mutuals and what can be done. It does not have to be on a small scale; the big society can be—dare I say it—big. One cannot get much bigger than £200 million.

I am aware that I am probably the first MP for about a century, since Joe Chamberlain was building Birmingham, to put together a serious piece of corporate financing in my own constituency off my own bat without any public funding, officials or assistance. I had to dream it up from the structuring I used to do as a tax lawyer before I arrived here. In my dialogues with Government I have been very open to a positive engagement of how the proposal we have put together and submitted to Government can be improved on, implemented and worked up. I have found it difficult at times to get the kind of engagement with the Department for Transport that is in line with the vision that the Prime Minister set out and inspired me to draw up the proposal in the first place.

The Minister responsible for civil society and other Ministers have been extremely generous, and I want to pay tribute to them. My purpose in the amendment is to send a stronger message to the Department for Transport than it has currently received—that the Prime Minister’s vision is a good one and that social enterprises, mutuals and the co-operative movement are great for our age. In the information age, they are something we can do more. I was personally inspired by the Minister’s remarks on “Newsnight” recently when he talked so movingly and powerfully about the desire to encourage communities to rise up and have a greater sense of their own destiny, to build with the tool set that we have in the modern age.

I recognise how difficult it is to make that kind of change, because there is an amazing amount of inertia in the Government machine. There always will be; any Government will find that. I am sure that former Ministers on the other side of the aisle will realise that as much as anyone on this side of the aisle. It can be difficult for new thinking and new ideas to take root to make change. It takes a long time, so I am aware that I am trying to beat down the door of the House with a reform that the Government are trying to prosecute. They are doing their very best, but it is inevitably hard because government is so large and, much like a supertanker, it is hard to turn around and move forward.

I hope that I have set out why the community mutual model is supported by 98% of the community, by more than 90% in the port worker trade unions in a ballot that they themselves had, and by the ferry companies, port users and wider local business interests. The whole community is united in that and in thinking that the harbour board has not taken the best approach. It is about not only privatisation, but something much wider. It is about a whole sense of engagement with the harbour board, how its members behave towards the community and about the perception that through privatisation members of the harbour board will net millions in share incentives based on the embedded value of the company and the business that they did not build up—it was built up over four centuries.

I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches has problems with share incentives for earned rewards, but not for rewards based on something that was there beforehand. That is why the 1990s’ privatisations sometimes went wrong; they allowed the embedded value of companies to go to executives and management, rather than give share incentives for management and executives to build up and be rewarded for the value they created. In that way, my community and I are strongly capitalist and say that this is not an opportunity to grab a load of loot and do a runner. It is wrong in principle for share incentives and investment rewards to be granted where that value has not been created or added to by the people in question. It is a very powerful view in my community that value has not been added to or created by the management, who would do very well out of the current privatisation proposal.

My community is cynical for the same reason and believes that the motivation behind the privatisation proposal and the enthusiasm of the harbour board for it might be that board members will substantially benefit from it, to the tune of between £15 million and £20 million, by my calculation. It is a substantial amount of money, which I look at and think, “I want that for the community”. I have to capture maximum value and benefit for my bosses—the electors who sent me here—and, in tabling the amendment, putting together this organisation and winning support across the community, that is what I am trying to do.

I hope that the Minister, who has put up with me for so long, as have other Members on the Committee, will tell me whether he is minded to accept the amendment with a view to encouraging our friends in the Department for Transport to go further towards embracing how things could be done.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on, first, breathing life into the Government Benches with his amendments and, secondly, speaking to the amendments so powerfully. We return to flattery again in the Committee, and it will be interesting to see whether the Minister succumbs to it and supports the amendments.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I disagree ever so slightly with him over whether the Government are making great progress on the big society agenda. I think we are on the fourth relaunch of the big society project and it does not seem to be exactly resonating with all members of the public, the voluntary sector or, given the length to which he seems to have to go to get them to listen to what the community wants, with all of Government. I wanted to spend a moment or two looking at why the Government object so strongly to a really sensible proposal from the hon. Gentleman.

It is clear from the Localism Bill that the Government wish to give communities more say and more control over what happens to their local areas. Here is a golden opportunity for Ministers to listen to what the local community want and to agree to it. Indeed, it puts a huge question mark over whether the Government mean anything by the Localism Bill if they are not prepared to listen to what the community wants in this case and to the excellent arguments that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward on its behalf.

Some years ago, and over a period of time, we may have considered a body of this nature to be either public or private, and we did not sufficiently consider whether there were other forms of ownership that might be more suitable for some of our public bodies. Since 2007-08, a lot more consideration has been given on a cross-party basis to alternative forms of delivery. That has considerably strengthened the consideration that is given in the House to co-operatives and other forms of mutual and employee-owned companies.

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that in 2008 we should have considered a whole set of options for bodies of this nature, in addition to that of privatisation. Indeed, across the board now, and in a variety of different circumstances, many organisations are looking at co-operatives and at becoming mutual in a way that they would not previously have done. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Opposition support co-operatives and mutuals. They are very much part of our foundations as a party and we feel we should have done more over time to promote co-operatives. Therefore there is much in the hon. Gentleman’s case that we would wish to support.

I also want to say something about how the hon. Member for Dover has engaged with the local community about what it wants, and I am sure that a number of us will look anew at the 1974 Act. It is not a piece of legislation that I am terribly familiar with, but by the end of the week I will be a lot more familiar with it. It seems a very useful piece of legislation in terms of going out there, having a type of referendum with the local community and gaining excellent evidence in support of the position that he puts forward. I agree that 98% is startling, but it indicates the huge strength of support in the local community for having ownership in some form of the port of Dover. Given the lengths to which he has gone to register that community support, I hope that the Minister will listen to what he has to say.

What is really powerful about this case is not just the level of community engagement and endorsement, but the further lengths to which he has gone to make this proposal stack up. The first of these is getting the users of the port involved as well as other agencies so that it is not just the community but it is backed up by other organisations locally.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, page 22, line 11, at end add—

‘2 Sections 22(1) and 22(2)(a) do not apply to an order under section 5 which provides for the functions of the Dover Harbour Board to be transferred to another person.’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

At the end of this morning’s debate, I was complimenting the hon. Member for Dover on the very sound case he has made in his amendments. I was congratulating him on managing to get many of the agencies involved in the port of Dover to come together to support it being owned by the local community. I also want to congratulate him on putting together what looks like a very sound financial package in support of the initiative. He could have another career in consultancy for MPs and in giving information to all of us on how we might put such funding packages together, because he did indeed seem to offer a possible way forward.

I shall conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman has proposed a model that will not only be good for Dover but can be applied to other areas. I certainly hope that the Government will back his amendments.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Amess. Hon. Members from all parties—and, I suspect, you, Mr Amess—were impressed by the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover this morning. It was impressive both for its power and its sincerity.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend for the ridiculously nice things he said about me. The Paymaster General is already aware that my hon. Friend came to the Committee brandishing amendments that are designed to be helpful. I think that was the word he used, which has some resonance in the Whips Office, if I remember it correctly. I hope I am not taking a step too far in saying that, on behalf of the whole Committee, I thank my hon. Friend for enlivening our proceedings during the days and weeks of our sittings. We have tended to the dry and dusty at times, and he has helped to enliven proceedings and has shared with us his habit of watching a television channel broadcast in a language he does not understand. The motivation for that remains unclear. However, the motivation for the amendments is extremely clear.

My hon. Friend is leading a very heartfelt and powerful campaign for the port of Dover to become a port owned by the community. He clearly has strong community support for that notion, on a North Korean scale. A huge amount of effort and work has gone into the structuring of the proposal and the partnership building required to make that work. We have been listening to the words and work of an outstanding constituency MP. I have put that on the record just in case it may deter the hon. Member for Leicester South from acting on his pledge to go down to Dover and campaign against my hon. Friend. I would hate to see him waste a train ticket.

As my hon. Friend said, amendment 36 would add Dover Harbour Board to schedule 5, enabling its functions to be modified or transferred to an eligible person. As he said, amendment 37 is consequential and would be relevant only if amendment 36 were accepted. The provision would allow the transfer of functions to be made without the agreement of the transferee and would permit the transfer of certain functions that might not otherwise be possible. We all understand the motives behind the amendments and commend my hon. Friend for his continuing work to find a solution to his constituents’ concerns about the future of the port. Occasionally, the chance comes to us MPs to make a big difference to the communities we serve, and I sense that my hon. Friend feels that this is exactly that opportunity to secure something important for the town of Dover.

I hope that my hon. Friend recalls that, in an earlier debate, in the spirit of being helpful I agreed to consider his amendment 35, which sought to add community benefit societies and co-operatives to the list of eligible persons to whom an order under the Bill could transfer functions. I hope that that will be seen to be what it was, which was helpful.

The hon. Member for City of Durham speculated about whether I would succumb to the considerable flattery running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I am afraid to say that, unlike you, Mr Amess, I am immune to flattery. I must inform the Committee and my hon. Friend that the Government’s view of the proposals in amendments 36 and 37 is that they are not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.

First, the Bill is being used to further proposals to reform public bodies if existing legislative vehicles are not available or appropriate. That is what the Bill is for. For the Dover Harbour Board, existing legislation already provides for the types of changes that would be allowed by inclusion in the Bill. Specifically, with an existing mechanism under the Ports Act 1991, trust ports may bring forward schemes to transfer their functions, duties, assets and liabilities to an entity that can then be sold or transferred to other parties. I assure the Committee that the provisions of the Ports Act do not preclude a not-for-profit body, such as one registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965, from acquiring a port. In addition, a harbour revision order under the Harbours Act 1964 may change or modify the legislation under which a trust port operates. The Government therefore consider that further legislation is not required.

Secondly, while I understand that the inclusion of the Dover Harbour Board in schedule 5 could provide an alternative route for achieving my hon. Friend’s preferred outcome through an order made by Government, the Government are not convinced that trust ports are suitable candidates for inclusion in the Bill’s schedules. I can explain. The purpose of the Bill is to progress a series of proposed reforms to public bodies that were part of the public bodies review which reported in October 2010. Trust ports are not owned by nor established by Government, and they were not in the scope of the public bodies review. Trust ports are independent statutory bodies and the Government have limited involvement in the different trust ports, as provided for by their local legislation. It would be out of step to take such a broad path in relation to the trust port of Dover alone.

My hon. Friend is aware that an application for a transfer scheme for the port of Dover is still under consideration by the Secretary of State for Transport. The process might be moving slower than he would like, but it is moving. He is aware, and the Committee should be aware, that the decision is quasi-judicial and, as such, it would be wrong for the Government to express a position, either in relation to that application or to the proposals for a people’s port for Dover.

I stress to the Committee, however, that at the beginning of last month the Secretary of State announced the new criteria that would be used when considering applications for a transfer scheme by a trust port. One of the essential criteria that are to be met before a transfer scheme will be approved is that the sale is considered likely to deliver an enduring and significant level of community participation in the port. I hope that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend that the Government recognise the value of ports to the communities in which they are based and are seeking to reflect that in policy.

My hon. Friend also speculated whether the Ports Act could allow a nuanced approach. He should be aware that under the Ports Act a Minister can make a “minded to” decision on a transfer scheme, and can set out matters on which he would require further assurance or action before confirming a transfer scheme order. Such conditions might allow for alternative ownership models to be considered beyond simple private ownership. In the light of those comments, my commitment to consider further amendment 36, and with my genuine admiration for the diligence of my hon. Friend’s work on behalf of the people of Dover, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. My hon. Friend the Minister is right: the section 9 process is under way and was started under the previous Government. He is also right that it is seen as a quasi-judicial decision, subject to the criteria set down by the Secretary of State, and that substantial community involvement is included in the criteria. That substantial community involvement, which has been debated here and in Dover, stands at about 15% community ownership. That is not going to be the most substantial community involvement there could be.

According to company law, to turn a port into a company in any other form of trade—a tennis ball company, for example—could be done by changing the articles, which requires 75% ownership. Therefore, 15% would not be even a blocking minority; it would not, to my mind, be a substantial shareholding in the port that would enable the community to have a sense of determination and connection with the port’s future. I seek to give the transportation Department pause for thought regarding the direction of travel and the policy, started under the previous Government, of a simple sale. Instead, we should do something more in line with the principles, set out by the new Government, of co-operatives, social enterprises and mutuals. That is really important.

I touched earlier on the issue of inertia in government and the difficulty of turning around a supertanker, and the difficulty of ensuring that new policies are pushed through quickly when we have a Government who are committed to such a vision and to changing the politics. If we are to have that kind of social enterprise, mutualisation, localism and decentralisation, and if we are to build the big society, giving communities a greater say over their sense of destiny, we need to send a clear message that the Cabinet Office should have the power to force the Government’s will on other Departments. At the moment, I do not feel that the Cabinet Office has enough strength and support to do that. I worry that if we do not ensure today that that strong message—on the direction of travel and the delivery of the Prime Minister’s amazing vision of the sort of society we could build— is heard across the whole of Government, we will not be stepping up to the plate.

There is nothing more powerful in this place than an MP advancing constituency interests. I feel that I have no choice but to accept the mandate of 98% of the people of Dover who voted in a referendum for this vision. The vision that the people of Dover and I have is the same as the Prime Minister’s. I know that this power in the Bill is simply additional. It does not technically affect the 1991 Act, and the Transport Secretary could just carry on regardless with the kind of plan that has been set in train. However, we are in a Committee that is about not only law but also politics, and the message will be heard far and wide across Whitehall that Parliament is serious about the Prime Minister’s vision and that it wants to strengthen the hand of the Cabinet Office and its excellent Ministers and give them the ability and power to ensure that the Prime Minister’s will is executed, despite any inertia on the part of Ministers or civil servants and despite any risk of backsliding. We want to ensure that a strong message is sent.

On that basis, as someone who believes in the Prime Minister’s vision, as someone who is a constituency MP mandated by his constituents and as someone who believes in the big society, I want to press the amendment to a vote.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 21, line 25, at end insert ‘Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.’.

I do not think that I welcomed you sufficiently effusively this morning, Mr Amess, so please take it as read that I meant it, and I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon.

Amendment 47 will list Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in schedule 5 to the Bill, which enables the modification or transfer of functions. The amendment is minor and technical, rather than a substantive policy change. The reform it will facilitate constitutes a straightforward and hopefully uncontroversial legal tidying-up exercise. The proposed reforms have been led by the chief executive of the National Archives, who is also the keeper of the public records, and they have been agreed with the palace.

HMSO was founded in 1786. It is the holder of the Crown copyright and has been the official printer and publisher of all Acts of Parliament since 1889. Indeed, sharp-eyed members of the Committee will be able to see its imprint on the back of the Bill under consideration today. HMSO was one of four bodies that came together between 2003 and 2006 to form the National Archives, joining with the Public Record Office, the Office of Public Sector Information and the royal commission on historical manuscripts. Most of HMSO’s functions are conferred on the controller of HMSO, an officer within the National Archives, via royal letters patent. Those functions will remain unchanged. A small number of HMSO’s functions are conferred by statute, and it is envisaged that those will be transferred to the Public Record Office by order under the powers in clause 5. It is also envisaged that, when an appropriate transfer of functions is achieved through such an order, the PRO will be legally renamed as the National Archives. Looking closely at our proposals, we have established that HMSO’s statutory functions cannot be transferred by order under clause 5 without HMSO itself being included in schedule 5, hence its proposed inclusion in the schedule at this later date.

The amendment and the reform are consistent with announcements made by the Government, and with previous statements that the existing administrative arrangements for the National Archives will, where possible, be placed on a clearer statutory footing. The aim is to provide clarity for the public and to formalise the merger process begun under the previous Administration. The proposal will strengthen the National Archives’ ability to perform functions that the Government believe to be of immense value. Accordingly, the amendment builds on the listing of three other TNA bodies and offices in schedule 5: the Keeper of Public Records, the Public Record Office and the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Council on Public Records.

I reassure Members that no functions currently performed by the National Archives or any of its component parts, including HMSO, will be negatively affected by the amendment. There will be no impact on staff and no financial implications.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It would appear that HMSO’s inclusion in schedule 5 will facilitate largely technical changes. We do not wish to raise any matters at this time.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 5, page 21, line 27, leave out ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 52, in schedule 5, page 21, line 28, leave out ‘Human Tissue Authority’.

Amendment 53, in schedule 5, page 22, line 11, at end insert—

‘2 An order may not be made in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority unless an independent review indicates that the terms of such an order made under section 5(1) would increase the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the functions exercised by the Authority and would deliver a net benefit.’.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

It is good to see you looking so well, Mr Amess. I do not know whether you have read the New Statesman, but it contains something about this Committee. It might have something to do with your chairmanship, but three members of the Committee have been tipped for future leadership. I do not know whether you can feel the glow, but those members are my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton and for East Surrey. It is amazing. Those members are under 40, but those of us who feel under 40 are not on the list.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

Is my hon. Friend aware that she has deeply embarrassed three members of the Committee? Is it possible for the Committee to move on?

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

There is a link, which is the next generation.

Both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority are astonished to be in the Bill, and both bodies were astonished not even to be consulted on their inclusion. Both have an international reputation, and their advice is sought on all aspects of tissues and embryology. Other countries seek their advice on how best to address moral issues. Both these organisations deal with medical, legal and ethical issues, and they are, importantly, independent—from politicians and from Government.

It is helpful to look at the background to how those bodies were first formed. The HTA was founded as a result of organs being removed from children’s bodies without the consent of their parents. At Bristol Royal Infirmary, 170 hearts from children who had been operated on at that hospital were retained without the consent of their grieving parents.

The HFEA was born as result of the work of Baroness Warnock of the other place. Highly respected and—dare I say it?—a national icon, she is world-renowned as a major philosopher. She conducted a report into the special status of the embryo. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was passed—I know this seems to be a running thread in this Committee—by the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her Conservative Government. It is a very important piece of legislation; for once I can say that I actually agreed with Mrs Thatcher.

These bodies were born not out of political ideology but of certain serious moral and ethical issues. They are there to protect the public. Therefore, what one has to look at is, what is actually driving this proposal? Why are these bodies in the Bill? It cannot be money: the HFEA receives just £2 million, and makes up the rest of its income from fees. The HTA receives just £1 million from the Government.

I would just like to mention what the Department of Health said about the HFEA in “Liberating the NHS: Report of the arm’s-length bodies review”. I shall read it out because it is quite instructive, and then perhaps we can work out why the Department has changed its mind. Paragraph 3.29 states:

“The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is responsible for licensing fertility treatments and research conducted using human embryos. As such, it deals with issues that are judicially and ethically complex and contentious. By being at arm’s-length, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority separates sensitive issues from government and its independence is trusted. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s functions satisfy the criteria for being undertaken by an arm’s-length body”.

That was in July 2010. It is a ringing endorsement by any account, so it is perplexing to everybody concerned that the HFEA is included in the Bill.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

The hon. Lady makes the point very strongly about the need for that arm’s length relationship and for independence. Before she leaves the argument about cost, has she reflected, as I have, on the likely increase in cost of transferring those responsibilities from the HFEA to the Care Quality Commission? This is a new remit for the CQC, which will have big resource implications. They will admittedly be positive ones; but it does raise, once more, the issue of cost.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to the Care Quality Commission, its function and how these costs will be absorbed. I do have deep concerns about that. The fact is that both the HTA and the HFEA can stand alone and pay for themselves, so I think there will be more costs if this happens.

The HTA can best be described as the guardian of consent. It has public confidence: a recent MORI poll showed an increase in confidence in human tissue regulation from 52% in 2007 to 57% in 2010.

As I have already mentioned, both the HFEA and the HTA have a unique position of independence, which enables the discussion of sensitive issues. An example might be the debate about extending the service for multiple births. There has now been a debate about the difficulties experienced by women in multiple births where more than one embryo has been implanted, and the HFEA has made a decision about that. More recently—indeed, it was in the news today—there has been the issue of organ donation. Such matters need to be discussed away from the political limelight, which is what these bodies do. They have boards with proper governance, and proper experts who can sit quietly, discuss huge moral issues and show their independence. That is why it is important that they be retained. They take their decisions not on the basis of commercial interest but in the public interest, which is what makes them so important. What about their future? What have the Government decided to do with these two bodies? They intend to separate the regulatory functions from the research functions. The regulatory functions will go to the CQC and the research part will go into a proposed health research authority, which has not yet even been set up. It is not clear what its function is, who will be in it and who will govern it.

Where will the CQC go? It is a massive regulator. I am not deriding members of the CQC, because they are public servants and they work in the public interest. I am a member of the Health Committee, however, and we concluded in our most recent report that

“the bias in the work of the CQC away from its core function of inspection and towards the essentially administrative task of registration represented a significant distortion of priorities.”

The CQC spent all its time registering dentists instead of going and investigating homes. The Committee also stated:

“We are extremely concerned that CQC's compliance activity fell to such low levels in the course of 2010-11…the fact that this was done to the extent that inspections fell by an unacceptable 70% demonstrates a failure to manage resource and activity in line with the main statutory objective of the CQC to ‘protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of people who use health and social care services’.”

The CQC failed to act when a whistleblower approached it about the Winterbourne View care home. The worrying thing about the CQC is that total establishment vacancies moved from 148 in June 2010 to 297 in June 2011. Its compliance inspector and registration assessor vacancies—the core part of what it was set up to do—moved from 96 to 133 over the same period. Clearly, some work needs to be done to ensure that the CQC is a proper regulatory organisation that protects the public.

I have heard from the HFEA, which has said that it is already trying to streamline some of its work and costs. It has moved into the CQC so that it can share back office functions. The key point is that it does not particularly want to be part of the CQC; it wants to report directly to the Secretary of State for Health. Here is the science bit: I see it as a carbon atom with four little spokes coming out, among which are the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority. They are all stand-alone organisations that are accountable straight to the Secretary of State. If they are put into the CQC, they will become part of a sub-committee. We will not get the full range of expertise; we will get a sub-committee that does not really know what is happening in the discussions that are going on. Then there will probably be rubber-stamping by the board of the CQC. That is not the way to do such important work.

The HFEA does some important work, and I will draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of aspects of it. It found, for example, that two embryos were placed under a hood. We have all heard awful stories about what happens in America, where embryos have been mixed up, and a white mother has given birth to children who are of a different colour from her. Those are the kind of mistakes that the HFEA is trying to avoid, which is why it is such an important body.

Some clinicians do not want the HFEA. Some feel that it will hamper research, and that the regulation will stop them working. It is important, however, because it is about the future generation. We may make rushed decisions now in Committee, which is what we appear to be doing, rather than thinking about the future. The worst thing would be to look back afterwards and wish that we had held back a bit and left things as they were. That is crucial. Fertility and organ donation are emotive subjects, which must be left to these independent organisations.

In conclusion, there is little overlap between the regulatory functions of the two organisations and any other organisations. As most Members will know, the bodies that we are discussing do not engender mass e-mails; we have not been bombarded, as we are by the Forestry Commission. They are niche organisations that give the public confidence through their work, both now and for the future, because a lot of ethical issues will come up that will need to be discussed. They can be discussed by those bodies away from political pressures and away from lobbying. They discuss the policy and the issues, and turn that into a code of practice that people can abide by. They both have chairs who are well respected, both in their fields and for the work that they do on those committees.

There has been some concern about the evidence put before the Committee by the HFEA, but it is entitled to submit evidence to us in writing. It has a worldwide reputation. No other country has a body with such respect and independence. Other countries come to us for advice. We want to keep it that way. All that would be lost if it was absorbed into the CQC. The chairs have presided over very lean organisations—I have given the Committee the figures. The issue is emotive, but all that they have done is act in the public interest to protect us all. I urge the Minister to respect their work, let them get on with it, and leave them out of the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the way she presented her case. Let us deal with the common ground: both bodies have done a superb job, and they are held in enormous respect by clinicians and by the general public who take an interest in these matters. I do not know why it falls to me in this Committee to suggest why all of the bodies that seem to engender enormous respect across the board need to be changed—[ Interruption. ] As I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, said, this is coalition government. On a serious note, just because bodies are doing a good job, it does not mean that we do not need to look intelligently and analytically at what they do, how they perform their functions and whether those functions can be performed with the same degree of success in a different way that is either more effective or more cost-effective.

The hon. Lady said that both bodies were astonished to be included in the Bill. That astonishment must have been qualified, surely, by the consultation that had already taken place in the advanced arm’s length body review. It looked at both bodies, took a view from them, and looked at whether there were synergies in the two regulatory bodies, particularly in the context of whether the research elements were taken out. That was one of the conclusions of the ALB review.

The hon. Lady explained that amendment 52 would remove the Human Tissue Authority from the Bill. Amendment 53 would put in place additional requirements before an order can be made to transfer the functions of the HFEA to other bodies under clause 5. Amendment 60 would remove the HFEA from the Bill. Let me deal first with removing the bodies completely from the Bill. The Government set out our intentions to simplify and reduce radically the number of NHS bodies in “Liberating the NHS: Report of the arms-length bodies review”, which was published in July 2010. In the ALB review report, we set out our proposals for retaining the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as separate arm’s length bodies in the short term, with a view to transferring their functions to the Care Quality Commission and the prospective health research authority.

In answer to what the hon. Lady said about decisions being taken in a rushed way in this Committee, we cannot repeat sufficiently often that the Committee is not deciding to deal with bodies in this way, but merely provides the paving legislation for a subsequent decision that may involve a number of iterations and will certainly involve consultation. All implications of the legislation will be considered, not only by the sponsoring Department but by the House, before a decision is reached.

Most people understand the contribution made by the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which have established robust systems of regulation for activities at the cutting edge of medical science, ethical consideration and public debate that were appropriate for their time. I stress our agreement that the important function of those bodies should continue, although we must ensure that regulation keeps up with changing times and the principles of best practice. We must have a robust system of regulation.

Over time, for perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons, there has been an increase in the number of regulatory bodies that operate in medical science and health care delivery. All were set up with the best intentions to address and meet what was seen as an emerging need. The hon. Lady mentioned some reasons why those bodies were set up, which were important at the time. However, a considerable number of hospitals are currently regulated by the Care Quality Commission, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, all of which were set up as public bodies, work at arm’s length from the Government, and receive fees from the establishments that they regulate, as well as Government funding.

Our objective is to streamline health care and medical research regulation and reduce bureaucracy; we take the view that we cannot simply continue with the current system of regulation. The Government must take the opportunity to streamline the process of regulation and consequently reduce costs and the administrative burden on establishments, while continuing to offer protection to the public. The bodies are not expensive in the great scheme of things, but the total budget for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority is £13.6 million—a significant amount of public money. There is scope for some of that to be reduced—not removed completely—by streamlining and the formation of a single body for some of their functions.

We estimate that in England, more than 60% of the centres currently licensed by the Human Tissue Authority are also regulated by the Care Quality Commission or are in premises regulated by it. Over 90% of establishments licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are similarly covered by the Care Quality Commission. There should be scope for rationalisation to relieve the overall burden on those regulated. The removal of those bodies from schedule 5, as suggested in the amendment, would mean that we could not proceed with plans to streamline regulation, and could not realise the consequential benefits for those who are being regulated.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s powerful argument, which is really an administrative one. Streamlining administration is a good objective; nobody is in favour of bureaucracy, except perhaps bureaucrats. We are dealing, however, with the most sensitive and delicate ethical matters imaginable, such as the creation of life. How does the Minister respond to the argument that the committee would effectively become a sub-committee reporting to a board that might not understand the detailed ethical nature of the issues under consideration?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I simply do not accept that that would be the outcome, because the nucleus of expertise in the regulatory body would remain unchanged. The badging is irrelevant to that; the important thing is that people with expertise in the area are doing the job and have the resources to do it effectively. That needs to be teased out through the consultation process, which will precede any changes.

We are not talking about something happening overnight. We are deliberately not moving ahead at a rate of knots. There is a two-stage process, as I have indicated. There will also be two stages of consultation on the proposed changes. An extensive consultation will take place shortly, focusing on where the functions are best transferred, and that is when we will take into account the concerns of the hon. Member for Walsall South. I understand why she is concerned about whether the CQC will be overstretched. A subsequent consultation will then focus on using the powers under the Public Bodies Bill—if the Committee allows the bodies to remain in the Bill—to effect the transfer.

The public consultation document will include a consultation impact assessment, which will give a view on the cost-effectiveness of options for transfer, comparing them with the organisations’ existing plans for rationalisation. The impact assessment process has been accepted by Parliament for general legislative and policy changes, and I see no reason why it is not appropriate to test the benefits of these proposals.

A separate, formal, independent assessment of cost-effectiveness is likely to be costly to the public purse. That relates to the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Hemsworth and for City of Durham. We also need to take care that the legislation does not set conditions that are impossible to meet. Our existing safeguards are sufficient.

This year’s initial consultation will take into account the strength of feeling expressed on keeping functions together. As the hon. Member for Walsall South will know, there were powerful voices speaking to that effect when the matter was discussed in another place. We will proceed on the basis that our preferred option is to transfer to the CQC the functions of both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, except for certain HFEA research-related functions, which will transfer to the health research authority. We will consult on that basis, but remain open to receiving views on the way forward from all stakeholders through the consultation. The preferred option will address concerns about the potential impact of fragmentation.

Let me be clear that the vital function of the bodies, as required under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Human Tissue Act 2004, will continue. That should address any concerns about, for example, the HFEA’s registers and databases being lost in the process.

I recognise the concerns behind amendment 53, which is about testing the cost-effectiveness of proposed legislative changes. There is scope, however, for direct savings to be made from the total budgets for the HFEA and the HTA, which, as I have said, amount to £13.6 million. Through the streamlining of regulatory functions, we envisage scope for savings beyond those that each organisation is planning to make individually. That will be achieved by reducing overall running costs. For instance, we envisage that there will be significant savings as a result of reducing three senior management teams and boards to one. We also envisage opportunities for regulated bodies to make savings in regard to licence fees and the preparation and demonstration of compliance with the regulatory system. The Department of Health will undertake more detailed analysis of current costs and potential savings to inform the consultation impact assessment.

Turning to the proposed health research authority, the Government’s document, “The Plan for Growth”, which was published at this year’s Budget, recognised the urgent need to reform research regulation and reduce the regulatory burden on research bodies for the benefit of the wider economy. As part of its measures, the creation of a health research authority was announced, which will combine and streamline approvals for health research.

As a first step, the Government will establish this year a special health authority, with the National Research Ethics Service at its core. That will reduce the regulatory burden on firms, and improve the timeliness of decisions about clinical trials and hence the cost-effectiveness of their delivery in the UK. It has clear support from the Academy of Medical Sciences review of medical research regulation and governance. In line with the academy’s recommendations that there are significant benefits in bringing together all medical research regulation, we propose that functions supporting the regulation of embryo research, currently undertaken by the HFEA, be transferred to the remit of the health research authority.

While the creation of the health research authority has been widely welcomed, there have been concerns about its readiness to take on the sensitive function of embryo research. We recognise that. The Government therefore made the firm commitment in an earlier debate to proceed with the transfer of research-related functions from the HFEA, subject to the will and views of Parliament, only once the health research authority is established in legislation. We see the reform of research regulation as complementing and supporting the Care Quality Commission’s focus on the essential levels for safety and quality of care. Within that, we fully recognise the need to retain regulatory rigour and expertise in the fields of embryology and human tissue. It is envisaged that the expertise invested in individuals will follow functions, for instance through staff transfers and retaining access to expert advisory groups. There will be a carefully managed transition between regulators, which will ensure that key skills and knowledge are passed on to the receiving organisations.

Finally, I will deal with the reservations that the hon. Member for Walsall South expressed about the Care Quality Commission’s capacity to deal with more functions, when it already has a number of new functions and extensions to its regulatory role to cope with. The Government are committed to developing the role of the Care Quality Commission as the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. The proposed changes to the Care Quality Commission, through the transfer of functions from the HTA and the HFEA, and the provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill will strengthen its role in ensuring the safety and quality of health and adult social care services.

The Care Quality Commission will have a number of years to prepare for the transfer of these functions, and to assess the resources needed to carry them out. As I have said, this is not an overnight transition; this is a staged process. During that time, the Department of Health will work with the commission to ensure its readiness to take on the functions. That will include the Department working with the commission to agree its business plan and financial allocation, as it does each year. There will then be an ongoing dialogue with the Care Quality Commission, with its financial position kept under constant review throughout the financial year. The Care Quality Commission will remain accountable to the Secretary of State for the effective delivery of its functions. The hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned concerns that have been expressed with regard to other areas of the Care Quality Commission’s work. It is absolutely crucial that we get this right and get a regulator that is capable of doing effectively the job that we as a country want it to do. That is why that dialogue is so important.

As a Committee, we are not abolishing these bodies. We are providing the framework that will allow that to happen, at some future stage, if the two sets of consultations and the dialogue suggest that that is the best way of maintaining the sensitive, important functions that we have discussed. If it happens, it will happen at a future point, when Parliament and the stakeholders have had their say. If we accepted the amendments, that route would be removed, and would no longer be available to Ministers in the Department of Health. On the basis that there are clear intentions to consult on the proposed transfers of functions, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate what he is saying and how he has said it. If we return to how these bodies came into existence, we should remember that sometimes—very often, I think—Members of Parliament, legislatures and politicians do not know everything. Sometimes it takes members of the public to tell us what to do. Both these bodies have been born out of the fact that something disastrous happened to a family, children died and things were done without the parents’ consent in Alder Hey and in Bristol. We make decisions in the name of the people, and those decisions are sometimes not right. All of this has come from parents’ grief. The Government responded in the right way in 1990, and the bodies that were set up had an amazing reputation.

The same thing happened in mid-Staffordshire. Again, I do not want to talk about individuals, but the person who was chief executive there—and, a huge amount of public money is being spent on that inquiry—is now head of the Care Quality Commission, so she has her work cut out. She needs help, resources, and support. I put that point to the Committee, because I do not want future generations to look back and say, “Why are we having this inquiry? Parliament sat there. They had the ability to do something about that and they didn’t. They acted in haste.” That is what we have to be careful about.

Call me naive, but what I see is that anything with the word “public” in it is up for grabs, and that is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but why have these bodies been included in the first place? They did not want to be. They were not consulted. I have read out exactly what the Department of Health has said about them, which is that these public bodies have the Department’s full confidence. Including them in the first place is very curious.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is not intended to be a silly, party-political point, but it is a fact that the previous Government looked to merge these two bodies. They did not do so because they decided that it would not have been the most sensible outcome. We agree, which is why this alternative proposal is now being considered, but the two bodies were not considered inviolate by the Government that she supported.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

The Minister has answered the question himself by saying that we did not proceed. There is the rub: the previous Government consulted and did not proceed, because they knew after consulting the bodies that doing so would not be possible. There is no overlap; they both do different things and both need the environment in which to discuss these important, ethical issues.

I am not sure where the Minister’s figure of £13 million comes from. The cost to the public purse is just £3 million —£2 million for one, and £1 million for the other—and, as they are stand-alone bodies that raise their own fees, there is actually no cost to the public purse. They do different work and are regulated in different ways. The Minister talks about the establishment being regulated, but it is not about the specific work. One body deals with organs and the other with embryos. They are different matters and take different expertise, so he is not quite right on that matter.

Our generation has to be careful. We have to be able to think first and act later, but we must discuss this issue—I know that the Minister is saying something about consultation, but that consultation should have happened before. The fact that Baroness Warwick was in the House of Lords and was able to discuss the proposals meant that the HTA had a voice and could put forward its case, but as far as the HFEA is concerned, no such voice was present in the other place, where the Bill started. The HFEA was taken by surprise, and I ask why we have to wait until a few years down the line, when you have decided what the research authority is going to look like. We do not even have terms of reference. You—the Minister does not even know what they are going to do. Please forgive me, Mr Amess, for saying “you”, and not “the Minister”.

I have made the case about the CQC. I have real concerns about it and its difficulties—not about what the CQC is and what it does, but something needs to be done about that organisation. The Minister has not even touched on another regulatory organisation, Monitor, which has similar functions to the CQC. I follow Sir Ian Kennedy’s evidence to the Mid Staffordshire inquiry in saying that something needs to be looked at in terms of those two organisations. I am not in the business of doing the Government’s work for them, but if one is talking about looking at regulators, rather than having one great big regulator in the sky, the regulators have to be there to do the specific jobs that they are intended to do.

I hope that I have made the case that these are different functions, bodies and cases. I can only add that I hope the Minister will think again about the role of the two bodies. They do specialised work. It is an ethical and moral issue and a question of independence. They should be left alone to do their work and be left out of the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the amendment?

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

My advice is that I should, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 59, page 21, line 29 [Schedule 5], leave out ‘Internal drainage boards for areas wholly or mainly in England’.

The amendment deals with the last of the long list of bodies concerned with the environment, which we have discussed in the Committee. It is largely a probing amendment to elicit a response from the Government to determine why internal drainage boards are included in schedule 5. We know that the boards work effectively locally to reduce flood risk and there seems to be an enormous body of opinion and evidence that they do so very well. Indeed, when people have studied them, they have said that they are astonished by what the boards manage to achieve in particular localities.

Boards use volunteers who have professional, historical and local knowledge and they involve local communities very well. They seem to be an excellent example of localism and the big society, which Government Members were waxing lyrical about earlier. That prompts the question of why the Government wish to change them at all. They protect agricultural, commercial and domestic property, and they are developing a new role for themselves protecting particular habitats.

I have several questions for the Minister. First, why are the boards in the Bill? Secondly, what do the Government intend the Environment Agency to do in respect of changing internal drainage boards? Thirdly, will the Environment Agency have to get the consent of internal drainage boards before changing them in any way at all?

We need some clarity about savings. The opinion seems to have been put fairly forcefully to Government that if they want to change internal drainage boards in England, they should do so through primary legislation and not through the inclusion of the boards in the Bill. There is considerable concern that the savings that DEFRA has estimated of about £225,000 can be made only if there is further amendment to primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister clearly outlined what savings the Government intend to make, how they will be made and whether additional legislation is necessary.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I think I share the relief of the hon. Lady that we are at the end of the rather long list of bodies we are considering in the Committee. Last, but not least, are the internal drainage boards. I know that Lord Taylor of Holbeach was absolutely thrilled to be dealing with internal drainage boards, on which he has great expertise. I cannot claim the same level of expertise, but they certainly are a fact of life in the Somerset Levels. As she may have heard, people from the area are born with webbed feet because they stand in puddles most of the time, despite the best endeavours of the internal drainage boards. They are therefore very much a matter of importance to us.

The hon. Lady basically asked why and what, which are perfectly proper questions. If the amendment were to succeed, we would not be able to do what we intend to do. That is why I am going to oppose her amendment, although I understand that it is essentially a probing amendment. We very much support the important work that internal drainage boards do to manage water levels and reduce flood risk. In fact, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady: they are a good example of the big society in action. They provide a valuable service for local communities and they play a vital role in local flood risk partnerships and in developing wider environmental benefits. So why do we want to change them? The answer is that we want to be able to give them more scope for doing their work, not less. If we have the ability to modify functions, it is possible to ensure that IDBs can adapt and respond to change and that we can strengthen these important local bodies.

I say categorically to the hon. Lady that we do not intend to use these powers to reduce the functions of IDBs. What we are looking to do, and giving due consideration to, is adding to the powers of IDBs to allow them to carry out other water management functions that could improve water management in a cost-effective way. IDBs already have a sustainability duty that applies to the flood risk management functions. We will also explore the opportunities for IDBs to achieve sustainable outcomes through land drainage activity. In discussion with IDBs, consideration will be given to expanding the sustainability duty to include all IDB activity. Without the inclusion of IDBs in this schedule, the Government would not be able to make those additions to IDB functions, where it makes sense both financially and in terms of managing water in the area.

Our current best estimate is that we will save around £225,000 over the spending review period by simplifying some of the administrative procedures for IDBs. Perhaps I ought to make a distinction here. That is one of the other proposals that are not part of the schedule 5 proposals. Other proposals that have been dealt with in previous statements in the other place are planned in relation to IDBs, including simplifying some of the burdensome procedures for changing boundaries, amalgamations and reconstitutions and other arrangements. In addition, there are plans to simplify changes to the rules of procedure and to provide for less restrictive arrangements on governance, for example, in relation to board membership. It is likely that we will deal with those proposals via a legislative reform order, in addition to an order that will be introduced under the powers in the Bill. That is where the principal savings will be made. It is difficult to quantify other savings at this stage. That will largely be a matter for consultation with the boards themselves regarding what can be done.

Let me recap. The IDBs are doing a great job and we want them to be able to do an even greater job in providing an essential service for those local areas where we have problems with an excess of water, of which there are a substantial number around the country. The inclusion of IDBs in this part of the Bill will enable their functions to be enhanced, not reduced. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will be satisfied and even perhaps hang out a small flag in recognition of the fact that we are doing exactly what she wants us to do.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I did say it was largely a probing amendment. I have heard what the Minister has to say and I look forward to seeing even more super-duper internal drainage boards. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 6 - Consequential provision etc.

Clause 10 - Consultation

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, after ‘Wales’ insert ‘or the Welsh Ministers’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 and 44.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The consultation provisions in clause 10 were added by the Government after listening to the concerns of peers, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The provisions require the Minister to consult the body or office holder, persons the Minister considers to be substantially affected, and other relevant persons before laying a draft order before Parliament in relation to the powers in clauses 1 to 5.

However, there are some cases where the Minister would be unable to consult members of the body or the office holder as no appropriate person exists, owing to the fact that the body is defunct. An example of a defunct body is Food from Britain: the body’s council made the decision in 2008 to cease activities, following the decision of the previous Government to withdraw funding. Although the body has wound down its activities and its staff have been made redundant, an order has to be made formally to abolish Food from Britain.

The amendments would allow, in that circumstance, the Minister to lay a draft order without having to consult a body that has no members. I can assure the Committee that that does not create an exemption from consultation, as the rest of the provision in clause 10 would continue to apply.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Can the Minister give us an assurance about posts that are temporarily vacant, for whatever reason? He makes the case for a defunct body and we accept that totally, but surely a post being temporarily vacant will not be used as an excuse to avoid consultation.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is certainly the case. The amendment provides for a body with no members or an office that is vacant, but a temporary vacancy does not mean that the body has no members. It would be an extraordinary position, would it not, if a committee or statutory body were to have no members whatever and all its places vacant at the same time? That might suggest that the body was in need of reform in any case, so in that very example a consultation perhaps ought to be carried out. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our purpose is simply to stop the nonsense whereby we are required to consult someone who does not exist. Even in English law, it is best to avoid such circumstances, if possible.

Clause 11 - Procedure

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. I seek your guidance, which I have already had informally from the Clerk. I sought to table some amendments during the summer, one to this clause and one to clause 24, on TUPE. Somehow or other, we did not succeed in tabling them in time. No doubt you will have noticed that they are starred, which means they cannot be debated today. May I seek your confirmation that there will be an opportunity, if the Committee meets on Thursday, for us to have that debate then? Otherwise, I will seek to catch your eye now to raise issues that I would prefer to raise under an amendment.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Privately, what happened during the summer has been explained to me. These things happen; I entirely understand. My ruling is that it is perfectly legitimate to raise the issue in the stand part debate on clause 11.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Let me make some general points about the nature of the Bill and the claims being made for it. The way in which we are having the debate is unfortunate, so I hope that whichever Minister is responsible is somewhat briefed—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is me, and I am somewhat briefed.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I am somewhat briefed as well, unexpectedly.

I had sought to probe the Government about the Bill’s overall financial effect. My amendment is on the amendment paper, although we are unable to debate it. I had tabled it in good time—these things happen, however, and we are not concerned about it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Does the amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled propose—had we been able to debate it—inserting the following additional subsection:

“contain a report on savings expected to be made to public funds as a result of the making of the order”?

Is that the starred amendment in question?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman and very much welcome the harmony that has now broken out between us.

The background to the whole Bill involves two articles written by senior members of the Government in March 2011. One was written by the Prime Minister himself in The Sun and, a couple of days before that, an article was placed in the Daily Mail. The articles claimed various savings from the quangos. The savings were £30 billion if we believe the Prime Minister, who wrote the article two days after the Minister for the Cabinet Office had claimed a figure of £20 billion. I do not know what happened in the two days between those two articles, but further savings had been identified in what was described as a “bonfire of the quangos”. The figure was claimed to be four times the amount of money that Ministers had originally promised to save.

We would like to see savings being accrued, too, and we are no friends of the quango state as a whole, but we have had some interesting debates about specific matters. From the beginning, we have said that we want to look carefully at each decision to ensure that it is the right one. I was surprised to discover that there was £30 billion to be saved from the quangos—even though that figure is over a number of years—and I was also interested to see the disagreement, which no one else has seemed to point out, between the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because it is hard to see how £30 billion could be saved.

Members present will have heard the debates and probing questions that the Opposition have sought to put in Committee—we have tried to do so in a positive and constructive way wherever possible—and it is notable that few savings have been identified. I suppose the Ministers may riposte by saying that this is all to be done through further legislation and that this is only an empowering Bill, but even if it were speculation, it would have been interesting to see what savings might be made.

We therefore decided to table a series of questions in Parliament to try to establish the facts. You, Mr Amess, will from time to time have been as frustrated as I was with the responses from Labour Ministers when we were in power, and from Ministers in the current Government. We now have something interesting called the Freedom of Information Act, which I suppose was a major Labour achievement, but in the darkest of nights one sometimes wonders whether it was an entirely brilliant achievement. I therefore also tabled a series of freedom of information requests. It is wasteful to have to go through FOIs, and it would be better if Ministers just gave the answers, because they will come out anyway. The truth is that barely any savings have been identified at all. That is why I want the Minister to tell me how the clause will operate in practice when announcements are made after the legislation is implemented.

Given that part of the justification for the Bill was that savings would be identified, I want the Minister to consider tabling an amendment of the kind I have put forward—even at this late stage, or on Report—although we will probably not debate it. The country is in financial difficulties. We will no doubt disagree on exactly how that came about, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. However, there is agreement across the Chamber that savings need to be identified. Even if we were not in a crisis, efficiency would be desirable, so I do not think that the clause is adequate for what is required. I want some indication from the Government of the savings that will be made, if not now, then as the orders come through one by one, dealing with each of the bodies in the schedules. There is an interesting amendment later in the Bill that appears to say that some decisions may entail further costs in future.

Although it will be deleted by amendment 21, clause 32(2) currently states:

“Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds”.

The Bill, as seen in clause 32, originally stated that there would no charge to the public purse for any decision taken under the Bill. In other words, savings would be made. We now have an amendment that will remove that subsection. As they have given notice that they intend to remove that subsection, it is not unreasonable to say that the Government, who have made much of wanting to attack waste and so-called inefficiency, should indicate to the Committee the savings they intend to make.

I have some notes in front of me, although what I can and cannot say is slightly circumscribed. However, it is impossible to identify savings of anything like £20 billion. In answer to questions that I posed, the Cabinet Office itself only established £2.6 billion of savings over the whole of the review period. The truth is that the Cabinet Office figures are wrong, and I say that advisedly. We have asked questions of every Department, and the Cabinet Office’s response was the worst. I say that in the gentlest way possible. The most that one can identify is £1.5 billion of savings, which is £1 billion less than the Cabinet Office’s own estimate. It is striking that, even if we take the Cabinet Office’s estimate as being correct, £2.5 billion is slightly short of the £20 billion to £30 billion that the Government claimed when they announced the bonfire of quangos.

This issue may appear to have a slightly elliptical relationship to clause 11, but I want the Government to indicate what savings they intend to make, which, frankly, they have failed to do in this Committee. Otherwise, this is smoke and mirrors. There is still a case for tidying up quangos, reducing bureaucracy and streamlining administration—of course there is. There is also a case for accountability in a democratic century such as the one we now inhabit. There is a case for all of that, but it is not the case upon which the Government rested their argument when they announced that spectacular sum of money in The Sun. The editor of The Sun might be somewhat irritated to discover that the savings are perhaps a 30th of those claimed by the Prime Minister. There is only one way to clarify the savings, which is for the Minister to agree to set out in the Bill the Government’s intended efficiencies and economies, so that we can clearly measure the Government against the claims made for the Bill at the beginning of the process.

I am walking a tightrope by addressing an amendment that is not before the Committee, so I will sit down and listen to the Minister’s no doubt amusing answer.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not sure how amusing my response will be. I could offer the Committee several pages on the enhanced affirmative procedure, which is the substance of clause 11, but I am getting a sense that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss.

In the gentlest possible way, I will address clause 32 first. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not come across such a clause before. Perhaps he has and is using it as a mechanism, but there may be members of the Committee who are not familiar with the so-called privilege clause within Bills that start in the House of Lords to enable it to discuss matters that may have financial consequences, which the Lords would otherwise be precluded from doing. Such privilege clauses are probably a result of the Parliament Act 1911—that great unfinished piece of legislation that I hope we can complete at some stage with the reform of another place. At the moment, such a clause is necessary while a Bill goes through another place. When a Bill comes to this House, we take the clause out because we are the House that considers financial and economic matters. That is entirely appropriate—[Interruption.]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. There is a Division in the House. If there is just one Division, we stand adjourned for 15 minutes; if there is more than one, we stand adjourned for half an hour.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I know I said to the Committee that I was adjourning for 15 minutes, but I was going by Greek time. It has taken a little longer, but I hope the Committee accepts that the time spent has been worth while. Before we adjourned, the Minister was on his feet.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I was indeed, and I was trying to avoid a Greek-style deficit. I was simply referring to the provenance of part of clause 32, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth will know perfectly well, for the benefit of newer readers. The substantive point that he was trying to raise, and would have raised had his amendment not been starred today, was the cost savings. He suggested that for some reason we had given different accounts of the savings that were anticipated. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. The Government made a very clear announcement on 16 March—my birthday, indeed—this year that Departments are anticipating cumulative administrative savings of at least £2.6 billion, which will flow from public bodies over the spending review period.

It is crucial first to distinguish between administrative savings and programme and capital spend savings, which are not the same thing; and secondly to distinguish between those savings which are a direct result of the measures in the Bill, and the other savings which are being effected by a Government who are very keen to reduce waste and make sure that we deal with the deficit overall. That means that the figures quoted in different contexts will differ. The figure of £2.6 billion, for instance, is across the programme, including reforms that do not need this Bill to take place. When programme and capital spend are taken into account, we estimate that total spending through public bodies will be reduced by at least £11 billion per year by 2014-15. If the savings for each year of the spending review are taken into account, then a cumulative amount of £30 billion will no longer be spent through public bodies. Add a few £30 billions together, and we start to get to real money. This is a worthwhile exercise, both in terms of the savings we will make, but also in terms of the efficiency consequences of what we are proposing.

What the hon. Gentleman would have proposed, had he been speaking to his amendment, was the introduction of a statutory requirement for a report. I think he would have proposed this on the basis of increasing transparency over the issue of savings that will be realised. There are two reasons why that is otiose.

First, clause 11 stipulates that the explanatory document laid with the draft order must explain why the order serves the purpose of “improving…public functions”, having had regard, among other things, to “efficiency”, “effectiveness” and “economy”. Where a reform will deliver savings, the requirement to have regard to efficiency and economy would mean that the Minister would have to include details of those savings in the justification for the order.

Secondly, orders with financial implications will, as a matter of course, be accompanied by impact assessments. In impact assessments, as the Committee will know, detailed information on benefits and savings must be carefully set out for Parliament and the public to scrutinise. That is already set out in the published guidance on impact assessments.

I do have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I think it is important that, when we airily say that savings will accrue, we set out what we expect to see so that Parliament can hold the Government to account for the decisions that they take. Had the hon. Gentleman been in a position to table his amendment in a form in which it could have been debated, and had we not already made provision which duplicates the provisions in his amendment, then I might have had sympathy almost to the point of accepting the amendment. However, I cannot give him that moment of glory, because there are already two other ways in which those precise details will be published each time we deal with one of the consultations, orders or procedures that allow this Bill to take effect. Therefore, his objective is served even if his means is not the one I would recommend to the Committee. I hope that on that basis, and without having to go into further detail about the enhanced affirmative procedure, that the Committee will now allow clause 11 to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Delegation etc

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I just have a brief question for the Minister. Since discussion on the Bill started we have had a change of Government in Wales. Am I right in assuming that initial discussions were with the One Wales Government—the coalition between Plaid Cymru and Labour—and have there been subsequent discussions with the new Labour Government? Was there any discussion about legislative consent motions, the sort of reverse LCOs that we had been discussing in Wales prior to the referendum? That is a straight question to the Minister.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance about consultations with the new Government. I will find out and make sure that he is written to. We have the equivalent of the legislative consent agreement from the Welsh Government. Clause 16 is about providing flexibility to enable a Welsh devolved function relating to the environment exercised by one body to be exercised by the other. The clause also enables the provision of technical, professional or administrative services from one person to another for the purpose of exercising environmental functions in Wales. It provides Welsh Ministers and public bodies in Wales with flexibility to ensure that bodies can work effectively together, potentially realising gains in terms of efficiencies as well as effectiveness.

The clause ensures that Welsh Ministers can establish how the function of making arrangements using the powers under the laws can be discharged. The interests of the UK Government in relation to cross-border bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commissioners are safeguarded by a requirement that the Secretary of State’s consent must be obtained prior to those bodies entering into arrangements. All of the clauses dealing with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly are subject to the decisions made by Welsh Ministers in due course as to their applicability. This is an important devolutionary area which the Government have extended within the context of the Bill. Welsh Ministers may take different decisions from the UK Government on bodies that are broadly analogous, and it is important that they should have that opportunity where it is appropriate.

As this is possibly the last time that I will have the opportunity to speak in this Committee and because we have not had any Welsh matters so far today, I want to say that I wish Wales every success this weekend against the French and I hope that they go all the way to bring the world cup back to the United Kingdom. I shall be supporting them every inch of the way. Can I say what a pleasure the Committee has been under your chairmanship, Mr Amess? It has been an informed and articulate Committee and it has been a pleasure to serve on it.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I thank the Minister for those kind remarks in every respect.

Clause 19 - Consultation by Welsh Ministers

Clause 24 - Transfer schemes

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I assure the Committee that I rise briefly to refer to a concern that I share with my hon. Friends that relates to subsection (6)(f), which provides that

“if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer, make provision which is the same or similar.”

The words “same or similar” concern me because I worry that they may open the door to levels of complexity and variation that are not strong enough to ensure the proper transfer of rights and the protection of staff. There may then be a complicated and costly rewriting of TUPE-type arrangements for different transfers, which would increase confusion and possibly expense. I therefore wonder whether the Government will consider amending the legislation before Report, so that the Bill contains a provision that will avoid any possible confusion and complexity.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

This is another amendment that we are not debating, although we might have done so had life been slightly different. The clause refers to the transfer of all kinds of issues from one body to another should the Bill become an Act. That is right; it is important to tackle issues concerning assets and so on, but it is equally important to deal with staff in a proper way. We are dealing not with one or two staff, but with tens of thousands of human beings who are concerned about what will happen to them. We know of some cases where administrative measures have been taken to reduce staff numbers in quangos that have not, as yet, been abolished.

The clause refers to TUPE but it is not as clear as it might be. We have been pressed by representatives of the work force who are loyal public servants and want to provide the best service for the country. Through no choice of their own they are now subject to uncertainty, and the best we can do is to be as clear as possible in the Bill about TUPE and the protections it offers.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Arfon but I also want to raise another matter concerning TUPE and transfers. The pay of the most senior staff and board members in the quangos is an interesting issue, although I wonder whether there will be agreement across the Committee. I do not make a partisan point because there is no doubt that under the watch of the previous Government, it became an increasingly scandalous situation.

In August, The Daily Telegraph reported that quango bosses had doubled their pay and alleged that much of that happened under the watch of the coalition Government. I do not know—let us say that all parties share some culpability as I do not want to make this a partisan issue. The Prime Minister was advised—I think he accepted the advice—that we should aim for a ratio of 20:1 between the top and bottom levels of pay in public bodies. The debate about TUPE allows us to raise the matter. It strikes me that, if we are to offer guarantees to the ordinary staff who meet the public day in and day out, we should protect them, their pay, salaries, conditions and expectations for pensions and so on. I am not convinced that TUPE should necessarily apply to the 332 individuals who earn more than £150,000 a year. The reimbursement package for some amounts to almost £1 million. I do not believe that, if a ratio of 20:1 applied, that the lowest paid worker would be on £50,000 or whatever the multiple would be. I want to raise the issue because the Bill says that TUPE will apply and I want to hear what the Government have to say on that very difficult problem.

To their credit, the Government have introduced the transparency website, and it is possible to gain a large amount of information, which is not quite as impenetrable as the civil servants designed it to be. If one spends enough time, one can get the information out of it—I am sure that was not the intention of the civil servants, because that is quite surprising—but one does have to spend several hours on each individual to try to find out what the pay packages amount to.

I do not think it fair or right to name names, but it is extraordinary that seven men in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority between them earn packages worth £2.8 million a year. Although I do not wish to name individuals, I do not suppose it would be difficult to find their identities. The chief executive is paid a salary of £375,000, but the extras amount to more than his salary—£379,000. That is more than £750,000. Then there are their pension pots, which are probably £2 million. The executive director of business planning earns £195,000, with additional benefits of £199,000. Again his additional benefits are more than his salary. In the interests of transparency and the public knowing what is being done in their name with taxpayers’ money, it might be better to have another look at the transparency website and put these details in one place, although if one is prepared to spend the time, the truth does emerge.

I will not talk about the Olympic Delivery Authority, although the salaries of some staff are extraordinary. The chair of Ofgem earns a package of £415,000. We talked earlier about the Care Quality Commission, which does a very valuable job. However, we must ask whether we would want to protect a total remuneration package of just short of £400,000 in any TUPE arrangements. It is not clear in the Bill that those issues will be addressed in the transfer. Since the clause deals with the transfer and refers to staff, let me say that we are completely with the work force, who are loyal public servants doing a valuable job, and we want to see them properly protected with secure futures as far as possible.

The people who occupy the posts I have referred to are also distinguished individuals, probably with brilliant minds and records of service going way back, and I pay tribute to each one of them. However, as guardians of the public purse and with an eye on the times in which we live, can we justify some people—even at the third and fourth tier—earning more than £300,000 a year on this Government’s watch? That might have been the case, as far as I know, under the previous Government’s watch—I am not being partisan—but it cannot be right.

Let me say one final amusing thing, although I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr Amess. It is fascinating that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government appointed a Conservative councillor to another quango, the Audit Commission—a body that the Secretary of State has pledged to abolish—on £14,000 a year. That decision was surprising.

Although we might not have a full debate now on the serious issue that I have raised, we might come back to it on Report. How will we deal with the transfer of undertakings for the great number of working people in the bodies affected? More specifically, how will we deal with the levels of remuneration if we are to protect everybody’s terms and conditions? Will that not mean consolidating outrageous salaries that are being paid from the public purse?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Clause 24 is important. It gives Ministers the ability to make a scheme for the transfer of properties, rights and liabilities in connection with reforms under the powers of the Bill, and it contains important restrictions on those powers. It specifically allows Ministers to make supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as part of the transfer scheme, including making provisions that are the same or similar to TUPE regulations, or that are for the shared ownership or use of property.

I will address my remarks directly to the TUPE issue, which was raised on Second Reading by my fellow Hillingdon MP, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I invited him to a meeting, which took place yesterday and was constructive, to discuss the issue with representatives of the Public and Commercial Services Union. The hon. Gentleman’s reasonable point was that a lot of reform and change is going on and that there is, therefore, a great deal of anxiety, uncertainty and insecurity among the important people who work for the bodies. His reasonable and sensible point was whether we could do more to clarify the rules of the road. We are going to think more about what he said.

I shall clarify our position in relation to clause 24. We are not using the Bill to disable TUPE. TUPE will apply to Bill-related transfers. The Bill does not and cannot interfere in any way with its application. For public sector staff, the Cabinet Office statement of practice provides, as a matter of policy, greater protection still. That is what it was set up to do. It embodies an expectation that TUPE principles are followed, as appropriate, in non-TUPE cases. That is important. The clause fully reflects and is underpinned by COSOP.

The wording used in clause 24 is not inconsistent with past practice, which we discussed yesterday with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Practice has always varied, depending on the factual situation. The reality of this Bill, as an enabling Bill—it is, therefore, different from some of the precedents—is that it covers many situations whose facts are currently unknown. That is important. The view of this Government—and, I think, of any Government—is that flexibility is critical at this stage, which is why clause 24 cannot be prescriptive. I reaffirm the point that the Bill does not and cannot interfere in any way with the application of TUPE, and the clause fully reflects and is underpinned by COSOP.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

I am grateful for the way in which both Ministers have generally responded to points made throughout the Committee’s debate. Before the Minister moves off the issue of TUPE, will he confirm that the Government are absolutely reassured that the wording in the Bill—the reference to “the same or similar” where TUPE does not apply—will not lead to expensive processes of rewriting various different TUPE arrangements for different transfers?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

All I can do is repeat what I said, which is that TUPE will apply to the related transfers and that the Bill does not and cannot interfere in any way with its application. That is what I have to say on the subject at this moment in time.

I think that there is cross-party agreement on the more polemic point surrounding wage and remuneration levels in quango land. Given that we are at the end stages of the negotiations, I gently say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth that I am not sure that this Government came into power and said, “One of things we must do is bump up all the wages in quango land.” We are talking about a culture of excessive generosity with taxpayers’ money that has crept up over time, not least during the past 13 years of a Labour Administration.

More important is what we do about the matter now. The hon. Gentleman is right: our constituents are disgusted by such a situation. There is an important point relating to transparency because information is power in that respect. If he tells me that the various websites and online information resources designed to publish details of compensation payments are too opaque and not user friendly, I will undertake to ask why, because if the taxpayer is paying someone’s salary, they have a right to find out quickly how much is being paid. That seems to be a very important principle.

Although we are appalled by some of the redundancy payments that have had to be made, we have introduced new more affordable terms of redundancy and exit payments for civil servants and for those people in organisations that mirror the civil service terms. Those have applied to the majority of exits since the end of December 2010. In addition, there is a requirement for Departments to publish details on compensation payments as part of their resource accounts in order to support transparency. That requirement covers all organisations covered by HM Treasury’s financial reporting manual. As I said, if that requirement is not producing information in the most user friendly way, we will certainly look at the matter again.

Clause 26 - Transfer schemes: taxation

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 26, page 15, line 35, after first ‘duty’, insert ‘, stamp duty land tax’.

The amendment will allow the Treasury to vary the effect of stamp duty land tax in relation to property transferred through a transfer scheme made under clause 24. The addition of stamp duty land tax and the list of relevant taxes in clause 26 will ensure that assets can be transferred in an efficient way.

Clause 24 gives the Government the power to transfer property rights and liabilities in connection with an order under clauses 1 to 5. Clause 26 permits the Treasury to make an order that can vary the effect of tax legislation that may otherwise apply to the transfer scheme. Such an order would be subject to the negative procedure. The Treasury will consider the tax variations for each scheme individually. Clause 26 limits the taxes that can be varied to a list of relevant taxes. Stamp duty land tax was previously excluded from the list because there is an existing stamp duty tax relief for statutory reorganisations involving public bodies included in section 66 of the Finance Act 2003.

However, that relief and other powers under the 2003 Act do not cater for transfers to a non-statutory body for consideration. With the amendment, we propose that stamp duty land tax be included within the list of relevant taxes, because there is a possibility that some transfer schemes will include land transactions that fall outside the current stamp duty relief. The inclusion of stamp duty land tax will ensure that tax liabilities do not become an unnecessary barrier when Ministers make transfer schemes as part of reforms.

Clause 30 - Extent

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I call the Minister to move amendment 45.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Formally?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Perhaps the Minister could stand up and read—a technical hitch.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

With great pleasure, Mr Amess.

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 30, page 17, line 19, at end insert ‘subject as follows’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 46 and 48

Government new clause 4—V & A, Science Museum, Kew and English Heritage.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

You may be aware, Mr Amess, that there is an inconsistency between the trading powers enjoyed by the institutions covered by the Museums and Galleries Act 1992—an important year in your life—which include the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Gallery and the Wallace collection, and those covered by the National Heritage Act 1983, namely the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum, Kew Royal Botanic Gardens and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, known as English Heritage.

All those institutions can create companies to carry out some restricted functions, such as producing publications or providing catering services at their premises, but only those institutions set up by the 1992 Act can enter into shared services contracts and thereby supply services to other organisations. That means that current legislation prevents the trading arms of the 1983 Act institutions from operating to their full potential. I am sure hon. Members will agree that the situation does not make sense and that there should be parity across the trading powers of our cultural institutions, which will enable the institutions to discharge their functions equally and competitively.

With public funding under such pressure, now is the time to amend the legislation to remove a needless barrier so that the institutions can make changes and increase income. It is not a broad change, but irons out an anomaly in existing legislation in a way that will have real benefits for those institutions and consequently for the public.

Clause 31 - Commencement

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 31, page 17, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) Sections 10 and 11 (consultation and procedure) and 28 to 32 (final) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’.

The amendment makes simple changes to the commencement provisions, to prevent an unnecessary delay in Parliament starting the important process of scrutinising draft orders. The amendment stipulates that clauses 10 and 11 will come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed which, in practice, will require Ministers to have concluded consultation before laying an order and will allow them to lay draft orders immediately after Royal Assent.

The amendment will result in a number of important benefits for Parliament and for the Government. First, the reforms that the Government propose to make to public bodies will deliver significant administrative savings, which we have discussed this afternoon. It is therefore vital that those reforms that rely on legislative changes can be delivered as soon as possible. For some, the savings will depend on delivering reforms before the start of the next financial year and, to make that a realistic possibility, there must not be a delay in starting the scrutiny of orders. For example, the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities will ultimately result in savings in the region of £1.25 million in 2010-11 and a further £2.4 million over the rest of the spending review period. Such figures would be put in jeopardy if the Government were not able to complete the order-making process by the end of the financial year.

Secondly, allowing the scrutiny of draft orders to start straight away will serve Parliament well by ensuring that orders can be spread out over the months following Royal Assent. Parliament’s ability to scrutinise proposals properly could be compromised by a glut of draft orders all needing to be brought forward after Royal Assent to ensure that urgent savings are delivered on time. The Government absolutely want to avoid that scenario and we have said repeatedly that we will schedule orders so that Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the detail of proposals. That is an important aspect of how the Bill will work and the simple amendments would help the Government to maximise the ability of Parliament to scrutinise proposals properly.

Thirdly, it is important to know that Parliament will have already agreed to the principle of reform by approving the listing of each and every body in the schedules to the Bill. With that in mind, there can be no justification for postponing the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the detail of proposals set out in each draft order. It would be a delay based purely on a technical drafting issue, but one that would have real and detrimental consequences for the public by delaying the Government’s ability to deliver much needed reforms and to realise urgent savings.

Fourthly, Parliament and the public will still be protected in the usual way by other aspects of the commencement provisions in the clause. While Ministers will have the ability to lay draft orders and start scrutiny immediately, they will not have the power to make changes by using the core powers in clauses 1 to 5 until two months have elapsed. In that way, organisations and the public are still afforded the usual two-month period to analyse and interpret the impact of the new legislation, as it would be at least two months before any changes are delivered.

Accepting that the Public Bodies Bill is intended to be the mechanism for reforming a range of public bodies, the laying of draft orders is an important step in that process. It is logical and proportionate that the power to lay draft orders is available immediately, should Parliament pass the Bill. The amendment also clarifies that other, technical provisions in clauses 28 to 32, such as the interpretation provisions, will also come into force immediately.

The Committee can therefore rest assured that the amendment offers a helpful clarification of when each of the provisions in the Bill comes into force and it provides for the reasonable expectation that Ministers may lay draft orders before Parliament as soon as the Bill is passed. That does not change the proposals to reform public bodies or the safeguards in the Bill. Delaying the start of parliamentary scrutiny of orders, delaying the delivery of much needed reforms and jeopardising the realisation of urgent savings cannot be justified, so I ask the Committee to accept a sensible amendment.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

The amendment originated in the Lords. Therefore, if the Government have their way, the clause will be scrutinised back in the other place. No doubt, Members of the other place will look at what the Minister has said and what I am now going to say. I am not convinced about this issue, because we have had a series of debates on a range of different types of public body, and we have sought to probe why certain bodies were in each of the schedules, which were the meat of this Bill. Habitually, the Minister’s case was that this was not the place for the Government to explain how the situation would work, because there would be a period of consultation. Having used that argument in almost every single case, the Minister now seems to be saying that he is well on the way to consulting even before the Bill has become law, and that he is ready to lay orders before the House.

There is a contradiction between the statement that the Minister has just made and the arguments that we have heard over the past few weeks, and I am troubled. If the Government already knew what they wanted to do with these bodies, why did they not make the case better when the Opposition were probing away? If the Government did not know at the time, how can they now say that they are suddenly ready, or that they will be ready when the Bill becomes an Act, to lay orders immediately before the House? It would be wrong of me to suggest that either of the Ministers in any way sought to mislead us, and I would not even think that. The truth is, however, that it is hard to reconcile the Ministers’ earlier arguments with the statement that the Minister has just made.

It is too late in the day for us to probe that matter any further on this occasion, and, in any case, I can see that the Government have a majority in Committee. I want to reflect on the matter before Report and Third Reading. No doubt, Members of the other place will look carefully at the debate to see whether there has been any contradiction, as I suspect there has.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I am grateful to you, Mr Amess, for giving me the chance to reassure the hon. Gentleman that clause 10 prevails, in the sense that consultation under clause 10 must take place before any draft order is laid under clause 11. The wording is clear on that, and on the fact that 12 weeks must have elapsed between the start of consultation on clause 10 and the laying of an order on Royal Assent under clause 11. We are trying to enable a Department or a Minister, if they are ready, to get on with it. I tried to stress the point that where delay is not justified, the argument is that we must get on with it.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Of course we want to see savings, too, if they are justified, and we do not want to delay the making of any savings that are justified. However, the Minister cannot say on the one hand that there will be three months’ consultation as required in the Bill in another clause, and on the other hand want to remove the two-month clause relating to the commencement. The two things are not completely compatible. Can the Minister reconcile that for the Committee?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

We can reconcile that by pointing the hon. Gentleman towards situations where a consultation has effectively taken place already, such as on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Department in question will conceivably be ready to go, because they have fulfilled the requirement for consultation. For most of the bodies, however, clause 10 stands in terms of placing a requirement on Ministers to consult before laying an order.

Clause 32 - Short title

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 32, page 17, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

The amendment removes the privilege amendment made in another place. As the Committee is aware, this standard formula is incorporated in the Bill before it leaves the other place to avoid the formal infringement of Commons financial privileges. Removing the privilege amendment and reinstating the financial provisions of the Bill is a purely technical and formal process, so I hope the Committee accepts the amendment.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

This cunning device, which was developed some time ago, allows Bills to start in the Lords from time to time. We have no objection, but as this is probably the last time I will speak in Committee—in this Committee, I should say—I want to pay tribute to you, Mr Amess—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, but he is slightly forward. We have just a little way to go before we reach that point. As hon. Members will soon learn, there is a bit of tidying up to do, and people are working frantically.

New Clause 1 - Regional development agencies

New Clause 2 - Sianel Pedwar Cymru

New Clause 4 - V & A, Science Museum, Kew and English Heritage

New Clause 3 - Impact assessment of removal of regional development agencies (RDAs)

New Clause 6 - Powers of Welsh Ministers

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It would be inappropriate not to have a debate on something of a Welsh nature before proceedings are wound up. In moving new clause 6 I am returning, albeit briefly, to consumer rights and particularly the future of Consumer Focus Wales. In our previous debates, there was consensus that Consumer Focus has achieved a great deal in its short life, which is certainly true of Consumer Focus Wales.

This new clause, which is unashamedly devolutionist in its intentions, would allow the Welsh Assembly Government to set up their own consumer advocacy body to replace Consumer Focus Wales, in a way similar to the power already contained in the Bill for the Welsh Assembly Government to set up a separate environmental body, and similar to the way consumer advocacy is advanced in the other devolved Administrations.

From financial inclusion to postal services and food safety, Consumer Focus Wales has had a big impact and has been a source of high quality research and persuasive advocacy. Discussions with Welsh Ministers and a consultation have been ongoing, with a view to putting forward a new model that draws from the grass-roots experience of citizens advice bureaux. Although that presents some obstacles in terms of the level of resources and research experience, my fundamental concern is that Wales will not be properly represented. As a result of devolution and other factors such as rurality, rural poverty and the Welsh language, the consumer landscape in Wales is fundamentally different. A London-led model is not suitable, and leadership and accountability should ultimately rest in Wales.

I want briefly to cite two examples of the excellent work that Consumer Focus Wales has undertaken. Private car parking, which is a major concern of Consumer Focus Wales, was touched on in the Chamber last night. Consumer Focus Wales has worked closely with trading standards departments, including my own in Ceredigion, to try to eradicate some of the shady practices in pursuit of private parking offences.

Consumer Focus Wales is launching an inquiry into park homes. I have spoken to many constituents with concerns about park homes. Some of my more intractable casework has emerged from the sometimes confusing law relating to park homes. Residents of park homes are often older and more vulnerable, and I know that Consumer Focus Wales will do a great deal of good work for the benefit of my constituents. That illustrates my point. With a totally different planning system in Wales, it is clear that that work has to be done by a body with specific Welsh experience, and that can take forward such work in a Welsh context.

I know that the Government do not want to lose such work, but there is a fear that the model proposed so far will not allow such comprehensive work to take place. I am fortunate to have had a recent debate on Consumer Focus Wales in Westminster Hall with the Minister responsible for such matters. I do not wish in any way to insult my colleagues on the Front Bench, but that debate was a good opportunity directly to discuss matters arising from the Public Bodies Bill with a Minister responsible for the policy. The Front-Bench team has done an admirable job of representing the interests of other Departments, but it was good to have that dialogue with the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs. I was encouraged by what he said, although the devil is clearly in the detail.

The one thing that this debate is not about is the quality of work undertaken by Consumer Focus Wales, and I am sure that all members of the Committee will share that view. The Minister has stressed that view. Indeed, Sharon Mills, who saw at first hand the work that Consumer Focus Wales has done on food safety in response to the E. coli outbreak that tragically killed her son, has submitted written evidence to the Committee that expresses support for Consumer Focus Wales. It does a fantastic job, and the question is how we can build on that and take that work forward.

I am sceptical as to whether the Citizens Advice model will work for Wales. A separate body for Wales would be preferable. Citizens Advice does excellent work, but there is no doubt that the Welsh arm would not be able to be as vocal or as distinctly Welsh as Consumer Focus Wales—let alone the whole issue that we have discussed previously about the adequacy of resources.

The definition of consumer, as set out in part 1 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, includes

“the activities of any government department, local or public authority or other public body.”

As such, Consumer Focus Wales regularly undertakes work looking at the services that consumers receive from all levels of government. There is no certainty that this important and independent focus on Welsh public services will continue. The failure to recognise the gap between what the consultation describes as consumer policy and all the areas of work that Consumer Focus Wales undertakes creates a worry that arrangements may leave out altogether significant areas of work. The Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs said during my Westminster Hall debate that

“Consumer Focus Wales’s functions in representing Welsh consumers should be retained in Wales”,

and that it was important that decisions affecting consumers in Wales should be taken in Wales. That is a welcome commitment, but it needs to be matched by what is put forward. I make a simple request that Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Government should have the power—as they do on environmental bodies—to establish a body unique to Wales. This may sound a dry subject, but it is about devolution. There is a willingness, and perhaps an expectation, that Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Government will make decisions in this important area.

If it were a case of keeping the matter open and looking at it after the consultation, that would be fine, but if the power that I am seeking is not included in the Bill, there will not be a legislative opportunity for some time to give the Welsh Government this power. The Government have rightly cautioned against pre-judging the consultation, but that is what they will be doing by rejecting the new clause. If the Welsh Government are not granted the power through the Bill, and even if the Government decide that a separate Welsh consumer advocacy body is the right vehicle, they will not have the power to set up that body.

I urge the Government—I hope today, but if not then on Report—to ensure that the Welsh Government have the power to set up their own consumer advocacy body. The new clause will not mean that they will do so, or that they will have to, but, in the spirit of devolution, it will mean that they have the power to do so if they believe that that is the best option.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

You will not be surprised, Mr Amess, to hear that I am fundamentally in favour of devolution. It is probably the worst kept secret in the Committee or even in British politics. I support the hon. Member for Ceredigion in calling for the devolution of decision-making power. Whatever that decision might be, it is fundamentally a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

My point is that the issue is extremely timely. Some hon. Members will have kept abreast of the developments in the other place this morning. There have been calls for some time for a Calman-like commission for Wales to examine the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State announced today that we are to have such a commission, led by Paul Silk. It will not be a Calman commission, but a Silk—perhaps even a Silky—commission. Given that we are to have this commission, the Secretary of State called for a moratorium on further devolution for two years while the commission sits. I want to note my complete opposition to that. I agree with a former Secretary of State and one-time Member for Caerphilly, Ron Davies, who said famously that devolution is a process, not an event. That cannot be altered while the commission does its detailed work, which might take some time. There is a Welsh saying in response to being asked, “Come here for a moment. Come and do something here.” I can hear my mother saying it in Welsh: the English translation would be, “I’ll be with you now.” That means in a moment, as it were. That is not good enough for devolution. Devolution is a process that will continue whatever the commission does.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

It is indeed appropriate to end on a Welsh note. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for the amendment and the constructive way in which he presented it. He will know that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has recently consulted on proposals to rationalise the functions of consumer protection bodies. By so doing, it is his aim to eliminate confusion and duplication, strengthen local delivery and provide a stronger role for front-line consumer services. Exactly how that is to be done is now being considered in line with responses to the consultation. The preferred option set out in the consultation was to close Consumer Focus, which includes Consumer Focus Wales, because the Government believe its functions would be better carried out by an expanded Citizens Advice service.

The Government also asked for views on how they could work with other consumer bodies. As the Minister for Consumer Affairs explained during the Westminster Hall debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion on 14 September, it is not the intention of the proposals to reduce the level of support afforded to consumers across Wales or anywhere else. In fact, there is room for improvement and we aim to deliver that. The Government’s aim is to create greater clarity for consumers and others about who is championing their rights.

The Government want to increase the impact that publicly funded consumer advocacy has domestically and internationally. We want to reduce overlap and we want all that to be delivered by a known and trusted organisation with high visibility and outreach. As we have argued before, Citizens Advice already has an excellent track record of advocacy on behalf of consumers at national and local level, and we want to build on that track record and brand awareness. We do not wish to lose the experience and expertise held at Consumer Focus. Instead we want to bring together the expertise with the long-standing success of Citizens Advice and its bureaux in helping consumers. That would create a powerful consumer body that businesses would have to listen to.

While we want to make those changes, the Government agree that the functions currently undertaken by Consumer Focus Wales in representing Welsh consumers should be retained in Wales. Officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Citizens Advice are in regular discussion with those of the Welsh Government and remain confident that Citizens Advice could be sufficiently developed to address any current concerns over capacity and governance arrangements. Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Cymru are an excellent basis on which to grow our new advocacy model. They are widely recognised and trusted by the public. While it is not expected that the bureaux themselves will be used to deliver the advocacy role, the information and experience gathered by them will prove invaluable and ensure that the support being offered is what is needed.

There is a bureau in every county in Wales and services delivered from more than 247 advice points across the country. In 2010, there were 402,000 inquiries to citizens advice bureaux in Wales and they helped more than 123,000 clients. Every effort is being made to deliver a consumer advocacy model in Wales that will be as good if not better than now, and the amendment is not necessary to do that. Rather, in the Government’s view, it will add layers of bureaucracy. The amendment also goes against the spirit of the Bill, as it could add to rather than reduce the number of public bodies and create duplication of a service that can be effectively delivered by Citizens Advice.

Although it is important that each country has national representation on issues of specific interest to them, industries that operate across Great Britain should also continue to have a single national voice and not have to negotiate three times whenever they wish to do something.

As I said at the start of my remarks, this has been out to a consultation, which closed on 27 September. It asked specific questions about whether the model we are discussing might be appropriate in Wales and invited responses. The relevant Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will respond in due course. If they are convinced that a different model is appropriate as a result of responses, an appropriate legislative vehicle will be sought. In the light of the explanation and the assurances I have given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I concur completely about the need for transparency. I acknowledge what he said about the significance of citizens advice bureaux in our communities, and he is right to highlight the need to avoid duplication. The message that I took from the Minister in my Westminster Hall debate, and that I have heard this afternoon, is that the consultation is proceeding and those responses will be analysed by the Welsh Affairs Committee on which I serve. It will also undertake a short investigation into these matters next week. So the jury is still out. For that reason I will seek to withdraw the new clause with the proviso that I may return to this on Report.

The significant point that I want to make on the new clause is that these decisions should be made in Cardiff. They should be made by the Welsh National Assembly and the Government of Wales who are the best placed to make these decisions. They are best placed to respond to the unique needs for consumer advocacy in our country. That is why I am slightly cautious and almost hostile when Ministers say that they will reflect on the needs of Wales and on what is best for Wales. I am unashamedly a devolutionist and I want that decision to rest with Ministers in Cardiff. On the basis of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Schedule 1 - ‘Regional development agencies: consequential repeals

Title

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

On a point of order, Mr Amess, it is curious, is it not, that the clock is running about eight minutes ahead of itself? The Committee, too, has run ahead of itself, very much due to the excellent way in which it has been chaired by you and your colleague, Mr Robertson. We have very much enjoyed the way that you have handled things. There were times when we strayed beyond the limits and you correctly brought us back into order. We very much appreciate how you handled the Committee.

The two Ministers have dealt seriously with the issues we raised, and we appreciate that. As I have remarked, they are both reasonable men occasionally doing unreasonable things.

We have heard much on all kinds of subjects. It has been fascinating to sit here and listen to the wide range of knowledge that even a relatively small Committee brings—[Interruption.] Shall I quickly wind up? I thank everyone and, no doubt, there will be a chance on the Floor of House to reflect more on our debates.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Further to that point of order, Mr Amess, I also thank you for your chairmanship, good humoured and firm as it was. Can you please pass on our thanks to Mr Robertson? I thank the Clerks for some outstanding work. I thank my officials for their excellent work, giving me words that I could use and advice that I could understand in writing that I could read. I also thank the new, slimline Deputy Leader of the House who has done some absolutely Trojan work alongside me, even volunteering to speak on some of the more controversial bodies in the Bill. Last but not least, I thank all on the Committee for the extremely constructive and rigorous way in which we have dealt with a far-reaching Bill with important consequences for a large number of public bodies and the people that work in them. Some require serious debate and analysis, and we feel that we have done that. Thank you again.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

My colleague, John Robertson, and I would like to have it written into the record that it has been an absolute pleasure to chair the Committee. The proceedings have been conducted in good humour, with the occasional tinge of drama, and colleagues have done a splendid job of scrutinising the Bill thoroughly professionally. I also thank the Hansard writers, the attendants and all those who have supported us in our work. Most of all, I thank our Clerk, who has coped in difficult, stressful times and has kept me and the Committee in good order.