On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have learned overnight that two of the UK’s three shipyards may close in the years ahead. Given that that would cause thousands of job losses on the Clyde or at Portsmouth, have you heard from Ministers in the Ministry of Defence whether it is going to make a statement to this House or leave the Chamber without telling Members of Parliament what the future holds for shipyard workers in this country?

I fear that is not a point of order, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for placing his views firmly on the record. The answer to his question is that I have not had any indication from a Minister of an intention to make a statement, but, as I said, he has taken his opportunity to place his concerns on the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would regularly meet Back Benchers from both sides of the House. Why does not the current Prime Minister extend the same courtesy to us?

That is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to raise the fact that the real threat to the future of the shipyards on the Clyde is the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom?

That is a debating point but not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Do you think it appropriate and acceptable that the major decision to renationalise the east coast main line should have been announced on the media this morning, and that this House will not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State directly? Indeed, we will not even be the first to hear the statement. Do you think that that shows calculated disdain for the authority of this House?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) has raised a point of order, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) will want to hear the reply.

My understanding is that there is to be a statement at 7 o’clock this evening. As to the choice of Ministers to head Departments and the particular House of Parliament in which they sit, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that a political party should misuse an unfounded allegation about shipyards, when the company and the Ministry of Defence refute the allegations that are being made? It always seems to happen—every six months, people use those allegations for their own political purposes.

Something tells me that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to entice me into a political debate, and I must resist his blandishments. That is not a point of order.

Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be right for a major statement on the future of our railways to be made by a Secretary of State who is absent from this House. I was grateful for your advice last week, and I have written to the Procedure Committee. However, would not it be far preferable for such statements to be made to this House? Is it not a nonsensical convention that the statement has to be made in the House of Lords first? Should it not be made at 12.30 in this House, rather than waiting for the Lords to assemble further up the Corridor?

The hon. Gentleman is largely repeating what has already been said. I note his point, but I do not think that there is anything on which I can rule at this time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were told in a debate in Westminster Hall this morning about rail services that the Minister was not in a position to answer questions about what has happened to the National Express franchise because of the statement to be made in the House of Lords, which would be repeated in the House of Commons. Is there any reason for delaying that statement until 7 o’clock tonight? I presume that it will be made in the House of Lords at 3.30 and could be made much earlier in the Commons.

We have programmed business to consider, so when the right hon. Gentleman asks whether there is any particular reason for not making the statement now, I have given him that reason. Hon. Members may like or dislike it, but that is the reason.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, you promised the House that you would rebuke Ministers if they made announcements outside before making them in the House. On the “Today” programme this morning, I heard Lord Adonis announcing the nationalisation of the east coast railway a good 11 or 12 hours before the House will be told about it. What, Sir, can you do about that?

My understanding is that the Secretary of State was commenting on commercial announcements that had already been made, so I am not sure whether the burden of the hon. Gentleman’s charge can be sustained.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families visited a school in my constituency yesterday without informing me. I went anyway and was met by an abusive and unprofessional civil servant called Belshan Izzet, who told me that the constituency Member of Parliament had been informed of the visit—that was a lie—and that neither I nor the leader of the council nor one of the governors were allowed in during the prime ministerial visit. That is disgraceful behaviour by a civil servant. How can we ensure that it is not repeated and that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families abide by the conventions and courtesies of the House, which you set?

The hon. Gentleman is a regular user of the device of the point of order, which he is perfectly entitled to use. Of course, the normal courtesies should be observed, be it by Back Benchers or members of the Government. Members who go into other Members’ constituencies should give prior notification. They do not have to ask permission, but they should inform. However, I say in all candour and courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a bad precedent if Members started naming civil servants on the Floor of the House. I do not like it and I hope that we will not have a repetition of it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Ministers appear routinely to visit hon. Members’ constituencies without informing them, and your predecessor spoke out as strongly as you have today, asking them to observe the courtesies. However, they are not observing them, so what action can be taken to ensure that they do so in future?

The hon. Gentleman, as is perhaps his wont, asks a hypothetical question and engages in some star-gazing. The convention of notification must be observed. In the event of a pattern of its not being observed, I would not let the matter rest there.

Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), Mr. Speaker. You said that you thought that the Minister on the “Today” programme did not refer specifically to the action to be taken about the company. I listened to the programme, and he made it clear and explicit that the Government would take over the responsibilities for that company. It seems to me that he went beyond what was acceptable in an interview and made a statement on air. I do not wish to be pedantic, but that may give you cause to think a little more about your response to the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. He had the advantage of hearing the interview and I confess that I did not. What he has put to me is reasonable. I do not know whether the line was crossed, but the fairest thing that I can say on the strength of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments is that I will look into the matter and come back about it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week I spoke to the Fabian Society in Chiswick and Sheffield, and I would like to apologise for not informing the hon. Members whose constituencies I was in. However, senior Conservatives regularly come to my constituency and do not tell me, although I do not worry about that, because every time they appear, the Tory vote goes down.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is continuing the debate, although I am not sure that he is doing so by a point of order.

rose—

I hope that we are going to make some progress, as we have a great deal of business to consider, but the proceedings would not be complete without a point of order from Mr. Peter Bone.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of clauses of the Parliamentary Standards Bill were left undebated in Committee yesterday. I have listened to your pronouncements on transparency and the power of Back Benchers to cross-examine the Executive, but what happened yesterday was wholly unacceptable. I therefore wonder what advice you could give a Back Bencher to determine this matter.

There will be further opportunity to debate some of those matters on Report. I have seen the sheer weight of amendments to the Bill and I am not insensitive to the point that there is a need for substantial time to debate them. However, at this stage I can say to the hon. Gentleman only that everything has been done in a perfectly orderly way, and in any event, Rome was not built in a day.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Parliamentary Standards Bill this afternoon, could you give us some guidance as to how you will approach the question of amendments that may be moved on Report, given that, as you have said, very weighty questions arise—for example, on new clauses 7 and 8, which may not be reached, because new clauses are taken at the beginning on Report—and could you therefore also say whether you would be kind enough to consider those questions before Report?

I will consider those questions when I am aware of all the amendments that are before us, but it would be unwise and precipitate for me to do so at this stage. If there are no further points of order, we can move on.

Bill Presented

Sustainable Energy (Local Plans) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Andrew Dismore, David Howarth, Mark Durkan, Andrew George, Mr. David Drew, Bob Russell and Steve Webb, presented a Bill to promote energy efficiency; to require specified bodies to publish sustainable energy plans; to make provision for the transfer of functions to principal councils; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 125).

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997; and for connected purposes.

It is a pleasure to present this Bill to the House today. Before laying out what it is designed to achieve, I would like to pay tribute to the immense commitment shown by Claire Robinson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by Dave Joyce of the Communication Workers Union in putting together the campaign to change the law relating to the responsibilities of dog owners.

Why does the law need changing? At the moment, if a dog attacks in a public place, the owner can be prosecuted. However, this is not the case if the attack takes place on private property, yet there is clearly a problem as far as such attacks are concerned. Let us look at the statistics. Around 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year, with 70 per cent. of those attacks taking place on private property. In one instance, at Christmas 2007, Paul Coleman, a postal worker in Sheffield, was attacked so badly that he needed skin grafts and plastic surgery. At Christmas 2008, Keith Davies nearly lost a leg in a horrific attack in Cambridge. Of course, we all hear about the horrific attacks on children, who sometimes suffer from awful lifelong disfigurements as a consequence, and sometimes we hear about the terrible deaths that occur when children are attacked in the home by dogs.

Clause 1 would therefore aim to extend the offence of having a dog dangerously out of control, so that it applied not only to attacks in public places, but to those in private places, such as homes and gardens. For instance, where postmen and women or other workers have to visit properties and are attacked in the gardens or within the dwelling, section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 would apply. It would also cover instances where children are injured and/or killed in the home.

Such a measure is commanding support from diverse quarters. The Dogs Trust says:

“This Bill… places additional emphasis on dog owners to take responsibility for their dog’s behaviour at all times”.

That is an important point. At the moment, if there is an attack on a child or adult by a dog, more often than not, that dog is destroyed, but it is the owner who needs to be the focus of attention and who needs to face the consequences. That point is also supported by the Kennel Club, which says that this part of the Bill is warmly welcomed because greater responsibility is being placed on the owners to ensure that their dogs are not out of control.

Thanks to a campaign by the RSPCA, nearly 4,000 members of the public contacted their MPs to support the Bill. One comment is particularly worthy of mention. It comes from a mother whose own child was attacked by her own dogs some years ago and who has been campaigning for a change in the law since then. She said to me:

“I wholeheartedly support any moves for safety and find the current situation regarding postal workers and dog aggression wholly unacceptable. The consequences are devastating and life-changing.”

I have met this mother and I can assure the House that, every week, she has to live with what happened—week-in, week-out; year-in, year-out. Her view is that education is the key to changing attitudes towards dog ownership. Dogs need to be properly trained and owners need to understand that sensible precautions should be followed to protect visitors and children in the home.

It is common sense that a child should never be left unsupervised in the company of a dog and it is surely not too difficult for dog owners to protect health visitors, meter readers, social workers or even the people who deliver parcels to the door by putting the dog in another room for the duration of a visit or while the door is being opened to a visitor. Surely such simple measures as a post box on the gate or a cage around the letter box in the door would do a great deal to protect postal workers. In that context, the ability to prosecute would be a useful tool for the police to employ in the most extreme cases and it could act as an important deterrent, helping to reinforce the message that education programmes are designed to convey.

Many other organisations support the measure. The Royal Mail, crucially, is giving it full support, as are the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management, Prospect and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. Unison also supports the measure because of concerns for its members who regularly visit patients and clients at home; while the group safety, health and environment manager of Scottish and Southern Energy has also pledged support. The legal department of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has received 30 claims for dog bites from members over the past two years, the bulk of which were from home delivery workers. In one case, a worker was so severely traumatised by a dog’s attack on her as she delivered goods to a private address that she gave up her job.

The case for change is clear and the range of public bodies and members of the public supporting the Bill is growing by the day. The Bill proposes to take the emphasis away from the breed and focus on the deed. Currently, all dogs classified under section 1 of the 1991 Act as belonging to a breed dedicated to fighting are subject to seizure by the police, but on many occasions they are seized only to be registered and handed back to the owners on the grounds that those dogs are responsibly owned and managed. This practice ties up valuable police resources and time, which could be put to better use in tackling the growing problem of so-called status dogs.

The current law is not working. RSPCA inspectors, many police officers and local authority wardens are seeing many more different types of large powerful dogs on the streets, and section 1 of the 1991 Act has not had the desired result of preventing the four named types of dogs from becoming established in the UK. It has just not worked. It is the view of the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club that it really is time to change the Act in order to allow section 1 dogs to be exempted and added to the register without necessarily being seized—if it is the police’s judgment that that is appropriate.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill will focus attention on the deed rather than the breed. It is the action of owners—what they encourage or allow their dogs to do—that is important, rather than the breed or type of dog involved. This measure in my Bill is designed to give the police discretion to act accordingly.

It is time to take action. Support for these measures is widespread. Furthermore, the Scottish Parliament is legislating on the issue in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on Monday 22 June. It proposes that warning notices be issued to owners of dogs whose behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable. We should consider doing the same in England as part of a process beginning with education and ending, in the worst cases, with prosecution backed by the appropriate penalties.

I understand that Northern Ireland is considering legislative change, as is the Welsh Assembly. England cannot afford to be left out. Its residents deserve the extra protection offered to their Welsh, Scottish and Irish neighbours, and the Bill provides the means to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ms Angela C. Smith, Michael Connarty, Norman Baker, Mr. Bob Laxton, Geraldine Smith, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Natascha Engel, Joan Ryan, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Michael Clapham, Kelvin Hopkins and Miss Anne Begg present the Bill.

Ms Angela C. Smith accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 128).

We begin with amendment No. 63, with which it will be convenient to deal with new clause 4 and clause 6 stand part.

On a point of order, Sir Michael. There has been a most extraordinary development since we met yesterday. The Justice Committee produced a report to the House this very morning in which it has recommended that clause 10 be not proceeded with. That was decided unanimously, and with a majority of Labour Members present. The Justice Secretary has already indicated that he will not proceed with clause 6, and I am sure that it would assist this Committee’s deliberations considerably if he indicated now whether he is minded to accept the unanimous report of a Select Committee of the House.

As far as the Chair is concerned, our proceedings must simply follow the order that is set out before us. I am sure that if the Justice Secretary wishes to alter those arrangements or make any other interventions, he will do so in his own time.

I understand that amendment No. 63 is not to be moved.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Government for adding their name to my amendment proposing the deletion of clause 6. It seemed to me that the clause added absolutely nothing to the Bill, as the House already has a code of conduct that reflects the Nolan rules. It also posed a substantial risk in opening up to judicial review that which happens in the House. I am glad that the Government have recognised the force of the arguments against it, have heeded the wise counsel of the Clerk of the House, and have had second thoughts.

There are many other issues that we hope to address later, so I will not detain the House any longer. I merely express my gratitude for the fact that common sense has prevailed, and the clause is now not to be part of the Bill.

I am sure everyone will be relieved that the Government have shown such good sense. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on his amendment. If we are lucky enough, in terms of the timetable and in other respects, we shall deal later with new clauses 7 and 8, which will help to clarify issues relating to the application of article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the supremacy of Parliament. However, I think that we can leave that debate until later.

We are, of course, pleased that the Government have decided to remove clause 6. However, we wish to make clear that that is not because we do not approve of the idea of a code—indeed, we already have one—but because, as the Clerk of the House made clear, the clause would have put us on a collision course with the courts.

While I welcome what I expect the Secretary of State for Justice to tell us in a moment, this does rather take us back to the future. I will not rehearse all the arguments that were in my Second Reading speech, but I will say that if clause 6 had remained in the Bill, the legitimate concerns of constituents would have been replaced by the vexatious concerns of litigants.

We are, however, disappointed that yesterday, having delighted us by saying that they would withdraw the clause, the Government brought it in again through the back door, in a slightly watered-down form, by changing all the language of clause 5 from the word “rules” to the word “code”. That, in our view, has introduced a new element of confusion. Before the amendments were passed, there was a welcome hint of clarity. The word “code” now refers only to financial interests. It is to some extent sub-divided in the language of clause 5, but, as with the use of the word “standards”, the Government have introduced that element of confusion, which could otherwise have been avoided.

I think that the origin is, once again, interference by the Prime Minister. Page 8 and other parts of the document that he produced yesterday, “Building Britain’s Future”—itself probably an inaccurate title—state:

“We are introducing legislation to create an independent regulator for Parliamentary standards, and a tough, legally binding Code of Conduct for MPs.”

If we juxtapose the amended clause 5 and the soon-to-be absent clause 6 with what the Prime Minister has said about a legally binding code of conduct, and if we take what he has said at face value, we see that we may once again be heading for a justiciable code of conduct, which is exactly what the removal of clause 6 was designed to avoid.

We are not clear—I am convinced that there is still confusion—about whether that will create the problems surrounding justiciability that the Clerk of the House has already highlighted, but I am afraid that our pleasure at the removal of the clause has been tainted by our disappointment that many of its disadvantageous elements have crept into the Bill elsewhere.

As I said on Second Reading, it is good that the Secretary of State will remove clause 6, but when he rises to explain his reasoning for that, he might also explain his logic as to how it is consistent to remove clause 6 while retaining other provisions such as clause 10.

I am grateful for recognition of the fact that I have sought to respond to proposals from all parts of the House to improve the Bill, and I shall continue to do that wherever I can.

Let me say in response to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) that the provisions of clause 5 are completely different from those of clause 6, which we hope will be excised in its entirety in a few seconds. Clause 5 deals with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—and, for sure, various statutory duties are imposed on that. The fact that what was previously referred to as financial rules is now defined as a code relating to finance is a rose by any other name in that it does not make any substantive difference. I think I can see a twinkle in the hon. Gentleman’s eye as he understands that point.

We will remove clause 6 because we have recognised the serious anxieties expressed, not least by the learned Clerk, and because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it could have encouraged litigious constituents. I might just add, however, that that prospect remains. It happens to be the case that I was the first Member of this House to be subject to legal action from a constituent who believed that they had been badly served by me. That happened at the end of the 2000-01 Session, and a resolution of the House was tabled on that. A completely inadvertent error was made, compounding one made by the local authority, in which the name of an innocent constituent who lived at No. 9 in a street was transposed to the address of a drug dealer against whom the constituent was complaining who lived at No. 11. The local authority transposed the two addresses. My very good member of staff did the same on the basis of the mistake by the local authority, and I was the subject of legal action. The House very kindly decided to indemnify me against the £33,000 that that mistake cost. That risk remains, but I have no wish to compound it.

As we are discussing clause 6, I shall come on to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) when we discuss clause 10. I see that an important amendment to it has been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) to which I am very sympathetic, and I will make a further decision about it in the course of these proceedings. With that, I ask that clause 6 be excised from the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 7

Investigations

Amendment made: 84, page 4, line 33, leave out ‘financial interests rules’ and insert

‘code of conduct relating to financial interests’.—(Mr. Straw.)

I beg to move amendment 9, page 4, line 35, at end insert—

‘(ab) at the request of the member,’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, page 4, line 42, at end insert—

‘(4A) No report shall be made by the Commissioner—

(a) in any case where the member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the IPSA for this purpose; and

(b) in any case involving the MPs’ allowance scheme, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the member concerned referred the matter to the IPSA for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.’.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 5, at end insert—

‘(5A) In determining the procedures, the IPSA must consult—

(a) the Leader of the House of Commons,

(b) the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and

(c) any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.’.

Amendment 48, page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment 45, page 5, line 11, at end add—

‘(7) The IPSA must ensure that any member who is subject of an investigation is provided with independent advice and counsel on all matters relevant to that investigation.’.

New clause 5—Minimum requirements for fairness—

‘The procedures referred to in subsection (5) of section 7 must, in particular, provide a Member who is the subject of an investigation or complaint with—

(a) a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the Member;

(b) adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout;

(c) the opportunity to be heard in person;

(d) the opportunity to call relevant witnesses at the relevant time;

(e) the opportunity to examine other witnesses;

(f) the opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given, and to receive transcripts of evidence.’.

New clause 11—Fairness: Minimum requirements—

‘The procedures referred to in subsection (5) of section 7 must, in particular, provide a Member who is the subject of an investigation or complaint with—

(a) a prompt and clear statement of the precise allegations against the Member;

(b) adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout;

(c) the opportunity to be heard in person;

(d) the opportunity to call relevant witnesses at the relevant time;

(e) the opportunity to examine other witnesses;

(f) the opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given, and to receive transcripts of evidence;

(g) the benefit of a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt where the allegation amounts to a criminal charge, and of the balance of probabilities in all other cases.’.

Clause stand part.

As drafted, clause 7 does not provide an opportunity for Members to refer their own cases to the new Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations. The Bill thus removes a facility that is currently available to Members and which has been used on several occasions in the past couple of years. Amendment 9 would restore that facility.

I think it is right that there should be no automatic entitlement for Members to refer their own cases. Currently, the commissioner seeks the agreement of my Select Committee on Standards and Privileges before he proceeds with an investigation into a matter that has been self-referred. In my view, it would be appropriate for the procedures that will be drawn up under this clause to prescribe a similar process whereby a self-referral leads to an investigation only if IPSA gives its assent. For example, there may be allegations made about a Member which receive widespread publicity but nobody actually makes a complaint. The only way in which that Member can have his name cleared is to refer himself, currently to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, go round the course and then, hopefully, be cleared. Amendment 9 would replicate that facility in the proposed new regime.

Amendment 10 deals with a different point, but it is similar in that the purpose is again to restore a feature of the current system that will otherwise be lost, and which in the opinion of my Committee has worked well. I am referring to the rectification procedure. The amendment allows the new commissioner to rectify certain cases without making a formal report to IPSA. It closely replicates the language of Standing Order No. 150. Typically, cases suited to rectification involve the misuse of a few prepaid envelopes, or an inadvertent and relatively minor error in the content of a letter sent out using the communications allowance. Where the Member accepts that such a relatively minor error has been made and makes the appropriate restitution, the matter can be regarded as dealt with. I fear that if no provision of this kind is made, IPSA will find that it is kept very busy considering reports on relatively minor and inconsequential breaches of the rules.

Subsection (4) states:

“After conducting an investigation, the Commissioner must make a report to the IPSA on the Commissioner’s findings.”

If the reports are to be substantive they will, again, involve a lot of work about very little. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could say something about how that unqualified requirement to report might work in practice.

Finally in this group, amendment 11 would require IPSA to consult before it determined a set of procedures applying to the treatment of complaints, the conduct of investigations by the new commissioner and the publication of the commissioner’s reports. The procedures will be of considerable importance to the House, and I am surprised that no provision for consultation was included in the Bill, especially as it very commendably includes consultation provisions in clauses 3, 5 and 11—a fact that should make it easy for the Government to accept this amendment.

I would have preferred the new commissioner rather than IPSA to be in the driving seat when it comes to drawing up the investigation procedures, and my failure to table an amendment to that effect is but one more symptom of the haste with which this Bill is being put through. I have, however, tabled such an amendment for Report, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could comment now on whether he will accept it.

A further question arises on this clause: its relationship with clause 9. Given that all the alleged breaches of the rules that the commissioner may investigate under clause 7 will also be offences under subsections (1) or (2) of clause 9, do the Government expect the commissioner to be at all busy, because these will now be criminal offences—and is it not the case that all serious breaches will be handled by the police, leaving only relatively minor cases such as the misuse of prepaid envelopes and the inadvertent inclusion of a party logo in a letter funded by the communications allowance to be investigated by the commissioner? Therefore, what exactly will the work load be?

Amendments 48 and 45 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) respectively, so I shall not comment on them. However, having successfully had a number of amendments adopted by the Government yesterday, I regard myself as being on something of a roll, and I hope that my good fortune may carry on to today.

I will not detain the House for long, and I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of our proceedings—although not so that I could have moved the amendment in my name in the previous group; I had no intention of wasting the House’s time on that, given the Secretary of State’s statement that he was withdrawing the clause concerned.

My amendment in this group echoes the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that Members subject to the procedures of IPSA and the commissioner should be properly informed of what is going on and have proper advice.

My particular concern relates to a personal experience, which I discussed in abstract terms with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, so as to avoid lobbying him about a complaint that might arrive in his in-tray. I had found that I had inadvertently breached the rules, so I went to him to present him with a letter, which was, in effect, a self-referral. He said that he was minded not to accept it, but when I asked him what action he would take, he said that he would wait for a complaint. I then asked him what he would advise me to do, to which he said that he could not advise me, because he might receive a complaint and have to adjudicate on the case. I asked him which servant of the House of Commons could advise me on the matter, but he told me that nobody could. I then asked whether I should seek legal advice—that seems to relate to the import of my right hon. Friend’s amendment—but he said that his body discourages from people taking legal advice because it makes its proceedings so much more protracted.

I have great sympathy with that view, and now that, between IPSA and the commissioner, we are having a separation between the management of rules, and the investigation of and adjudication on breaches, it should be simple for IPSA and/or the commissioner—here I link my amendment 45 with my amendment 46, which seeks to amend clause 8—to ensure that a servant of IPSA or a Clerk in the service of the House, which means someone who does not cost the Member money and does not cost the House of Commons additional money, is made available to the Member who is subject to an investigation or to a direction by the commissioner under clause 8. There should be an informal way of ensuring that right hon. and hon. Members have access to independent advice without having to resort to expensive lawyers.

That would be simple to arrange, and my two amendments seek to put those obligations on IPSA and the commissioner to ensure that that advice is afforded to Members without additional and unnecessary expense. That would avoid the situation wherein hon. Members are left completely isolated in a system that they are fighting. The accusations may be unjust or arise out of a misunderstanding, but we still ought to have a means of providing, in a fairly relaxed way, relatively informal advice. Obviously it remains open to a Member of Parliament to obtain formal legal advice if he or she so chooses, but I hope that my proposal would save right hon. and hon. Members a great deal of anxiety, while also giving comfort to IPSA and the commissioner that the Member was capable of dealing with the matter in an informed and practical way, and was not being left on his own or facing huge legal expenses.

I shall speak to amendment 48 and new clauses 5 and 11, which I have tabled to give effect to recommendations made in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee’s concern was about the need to ensure that Members receive a fair hearing throughout this process. It is often said that human rights are all about unpopular causes and, as I said on Second Reading, there cannot be many more unpopular causes around at the moment than us. However, our unpopularity does not detract from the fact that even MPs are entitled to due process.

The significant human rights issue raised by the Bill is whether it provides sufficient safeguards—I do not think that it does—to be compatible with Members’ right to due process under both common law and article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The Government accept, in their explanatory notes, that the provisions in the Bill relating to the functions of IPSA “may engage” the right to a fair hearing under article 6, but they say that no incompatibility is involved. Their notes say that the reason for that is, first, that

“the direction or recommendation functions of the IPSA do not involve the determination of civil rights or obligations.”

They say that in this context we are talking about

“a matter of ‘public law’ rather than private law rights.”

The notes say that the second reason is because even if IPSA’s functions do determine a Member’s civil right, there is no incompatibility because

“there are a range of safeguards in place to ensure the fairness of the procedures of the IPSA.”

In addition, they say that

“an MP will have the opportunity to make representations”.

However, if we examine the Bill we see that such safeguards are almost non-existent. The only safeguards are those in clause 7(6), which are that a Member has a right

“to make representations to the Commissioner about the investigation”

and

“to make representations to the IPSA in light of the Commissioner’s report.”

That is nowhere near enough.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, has admitted in evidence that he gave some time ago to the Committee on Standards in Public Life that even our existing procedures are not fully compliant with article 6. Yet the new procedures represent far less than we have at the moment before the Standards and Privileges Committee, and they are inadequate.

Is there not also merit in thinking about whether we should have some procedure for appeal, so that the finding could at least be reviewed as to its merits by some appellate authority?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates my new clause 6, which will be discussed when we reach clause 10, and I entirely agree with what he says. New clause 11 is slightly fuller than new clause 5 because it also deals with the burden of proof. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to accept, in principle, that I am on the right lines here, but I hope that when he replies he will make clear which of this shopping list of very basic procedural minimum requirements he does not agree with. He should do so if he wishes me not to pursue this matter, but to allow it to be dealt with in the other place. I cannot see which of my proposals anyone who is expecting a fair hearing could object to. If we are to consider turning our procedures to the outside world and having independent investigation, we should apply to ourselves the same standards as we would expect any other professional disciplinary body to apply in the outside world, be it one relating to doctors, lawyers or anybody else. We should not be treated any differently, fair standards of hearing are essential, and my proposals set out what those require.

My name is attached to new clause 11 and I support it strongly for the reasons cogently adduced by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I rise at this point to refer to a more detailed aspect of clause 7, and in doing so I draw the attention of the Committee to the report on the Bill that the Justice Committee produced overnight, which deals with many of the clauses and includes the Clerk’s memorandum, the Government’s response to it and several academic notes on some of the issues.

The issue that arises in clause 7(3) is who would decide on the reasonableness of the commissioner’s requests, and whether a Member could seek judicial review of the commissioner’s actions. If in the meantime the House had used its disciplinary powers to punish a Member for failing to provide information that subsequent judicial review demonstrated that the commissioner was acting unreasonably in seeking, we would be in difficulties, because that would open the door to judicial review of the decision by the House or the Standards and Privileges Committee on the matter. That may sound like a technical point, but it is potentially important, and the Clerk has drawn attention to it.

The issues to which the Justice Committee wants to draw special attention arise mainly in clause 10, for which we recommend a route to achieve at least more measured reflection on all these aspects of privilege by setting them aside for the time being and concentrating on the parts of the Bill that set up the independent body so that it can carry out its central and essential function. In case the Government do not accept that wise advice, we will have to ensure as we go along that we do not build in the potential danger of undesirable judicial review of the proceedings of the House.

I can well understand that it may be necessary to require discovery of documents, but as clause 7(3) is drafted, it would enable a Member to be required to produce “any information”, and that raises issues of self-incrimination. Perhaps we should look carefully at the clause to see whether it can be tightened to apply only to the disclosure of appropriate documents, and does not require Members to incriminate themselves.

That is a sensible point and further illustrates the need for much more measured and careful consideration of some of these clauses than the procedures that we are now following allow. If we cannot reach sensible conclusions about them under this process, we should set them aside and consider them later, while concentrating on matters that can be dealt with immediately.

I support these amendments, especially those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I hope that he will continue his remarkable run of getting his amendments accepted. In particular, I support what he said about the lack of proportion in the gravity of the offences to be investigated. We are all aware that there is no de minimis rule in the Bill, although inadvertent and trivial breaches may occur, through genuine mistakes, that could easily be put right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the timetable, we did not debate, and therefore do not have, a sunset clause?

My hon. Friend is right, and it is a scandal that we did not even discuss such a vital protection yesterday. The theme running through the whole of these proceedings is that there is no case for treating this Bill as an emergency. It is a complete abuse of how we conduct proceedings that we have been asked to sign up to matters affecting the rights, immunities and privileges of this House—and, more widely, of the people whom we represent—without discussing important clauses at all.

I am especially concerned by the lack of proportionality in these clauses. As I understand it—if I am wrong, I trust that the Justice Secretary will correct me—the same rules will apply to trivial or inadvertent offences. Many such offences will be referred to the commissioner as part of the party political contests in each constituency. Many people are itching to refer to the new commissioner matters that may be important locally but which, in the great scheme of things, are oversights that could be easily corrected. The commissioner will have to investigate all such matters, in order to decide whether they are unimportant or trivial, and will then have no option but to make a report to IPSA on his findings, under clause 7(4). The very fact of making any inquiry—even if the conclusion is that no action need be taken—must lead to a report. That will be immensely bureaucratic, and it is likely that in the intervening weeks the Member’s local paper will highlight the fact that he or she is under investigation by the commissioner. It is very important that we now try to assess what the commissioner will have to do, and to relieve him of the burden of having to make an investigation and report on unimportant matters.

My second point confirms that made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) about the possible role of the courts in this matter. Serious offences will of course be subject to the criminal law on fraud, theft and false accounting. In addition, and unnecessarily, we will also import some more criminal offences into the Bill. I am especially concerned by the word “reasonably” in clause 7(3). It could be judiciable—it will, after all, appear in statute law. I can imagine a case in which the commissioner gets into a dispute with a Member under investigation—for what may well be a serious matter—who resists having to disclose personal tax records. The commissioner may demand those records, on the grounds that that is the only way in which the evidence can be found for income received that should have been disclosed. Or the financial disclosure requirements could require the production of names and addresses of professional clients or customers, in the case of a business. The Member concerned may consider, reasonably, that that would be improper and that he owes a duty of confidentiality to his customers or clients. So there may be a genuine dispute between a Member and the commissioner—an external person, appointed by the Crown and therefore with no particular duty to or affection for the House, and driven by public opinion. The Member concerned may feel that he is on the receiving end of unfair inquiries.

As I understand it, such a dispute would be judiciable, and therefore the court would have to decide what was reasonable. In that case, the court would be interfering in matters that should remain within the purview of the House.

It is not only as my right hon. Friend understands the point, but as the Clerk understands it. In his evidence to the Justice Committee, the Clerk made exactly that point.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing that out. I think that that gives it additional weight and authority, and we should all be concerned when a servant of this House raises such points. The Clerk cannot make a speech; he relies on us to reflect his concerns, which is what we are doing.

It is a regrettable fact that the courts might be required to make a judgment on what is essentially a dispute between the House and the commissioner, with unpredictable consequences. If I understood the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed correctly, if the House decided to discipline the Member concerned and it was subsequently found that the information was demanded unreasonably, the court would be interfering directly in the disciplinary matters of this House. If there is something on which we all agree, it is the fact that the House must retain the ultimate sanction to discipline its own Members. If I am wrong about that—[Interruption.] No, I think that the Justice Secretary is agreeing with me. Will he explain, then, how that sanction is not put at risk if a court can declare that disciplinary action by the House is unreasonable because the commissioner had been unreasonable in the requiring certain information from a Member under investigation?

I, too, shall endeavour not to detain the Committee overlong. We have before us a range of amendments. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) seem, as others have said, sensible and workable. They represent an improvement to the mechanism of the Bill and I hope that the roll that the right hon. Gentleman is on will continue.

I was impressed by some of what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said about the availability of informal legal advice—I think that that was the way that he put it. Experience teaches me, however, that legal advice is never informal. One either gets legal advice or one does not. It seems to me that his suggestion, superficially attractive though it is, is a parliamentary equivalent of the legal aid duty solicitor scheme. For many years, I trawled around the police cells of the north and north-east of Scotland as part of that admirable scheme, and although I find the proposal not unattractive, even a legal aid duty solicitor has a direct lawyer-client relationship from which there can be no departure. The standard of service and care, as well as the duty of care, that is owed by the legal aid duty solicitor to the client in the cells is exactly the same as that which would be owed by any City solicitor to a blue-chip client.

I did not say “informal legal advice”, but “advice”. In fact, my amendment referred to “advice and counsel”. Let us suppose a Clerk of the House was allocated the duty of advising Members who were the subject of complaints, or of advising Members on how to conduct themselves if they believe that they have broken the rules. It seems quite reasonable that an hon. Member should have someone in the House to turn to. They might well say, “Well, in your circumstances you should go and get legal advice,” but we should avoid somebody’s having to take that step initially as it might be quite a low-level complaint. There should be some way of dealing with low-level complaints without resorting to lawyers.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I do not want to labour it because I do not know whether he will seek to press his amendment to a Division. There is certainly merit in the notion, but my concern is that once we come to the practicalities of how to make this work, the advice provided will effectively be legal advice. It would be a brave Clerk who would advise a Member not to take legal advice in those circumstances.

Although one might argue about the legalities, surely the proper position is to say that the hon. Member should have an opportunity to take legal advice. It would be for the hon. Member to determine where he got that advice from and how he paid for it, but he should have an opportunity to take legal advice and to be represented by that adviser if he so chooses. Surely that is a requirement of natural justice.

That is one of the most basic norms of natural justice, and once we go down the route that the Government are taking us down with this clause, that is the inevitable consequence.

That point brings me to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) succinctly and cogently showed why I would also support the new clause. It is a basic statement of best practice and I do not see what part of it could be objected to. I, too, will listen to the Secretary of State when he responds on that point.

Let me return to the practicalities of all this. The hon. Member for Hendon has tabled a new clause that will rebalance the rights and obligations under the Bill in a way that is very necessary. However, if we go down that track, what is there by way of effective investigation? It is in the nature of investigation that we do not always know what we are looking for when we start. Although much of what we have here provides necessary protection for the rights of the person being investigated, as consequences could subsequently flow to him, will we have an inquisitorial process that achieves the objective that we aim it to have at this stage?

Under the existing arrangements between the commissioner and the Standards and Privileges Committee, there is an obligation on a Member to co-operate with the inquiry. Co-operating with the inquiry does not preclude a Member’s having the benefits of due process.

It is a question of checks and balances. The system at the moment is reasonably well balanced because the consequences that can flow from an investigation are that much more restrictive. It is clear from the Bill, and from clause 9 in particular, that a lot more could follow by way of consequences in the future. That is where the inquisitorial element, I fear, could become deficient at the end of the day. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are good, well founded and necessary. However, I fear that as a consequence of the effectiveness of the Bill as a whole, we will be left with a system that will not work as well as it ought to. That is the consequence of the Government’s having proceeded in the way in which they have. They persist in that, notwithstanding the evidence that has come from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the hon. Member for Hendon, and the Justice Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) expressed the wish that his roll would continue. I want to back that wish in respect of amendments 9, 10 and 11.

I am of an age where in my Church we still said the old-fashioned confiteor, with “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”—“Through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault.” Clearly, we have to ensure that the system can allow for occasions where Members spot some discrepancy or indiscretion in relation to returns, claims, mistakes that were made by their office or the inadvertent misplacement of claims. When they identify them, they need to be able to have them corrected properly without being told, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, that although they have corrected the error themselves, they still have to await the peril or jeopardy of a complaint or to be subject to some wider observation. Self-correction must be able to be taken and we need to ensure that the system recognises the difference between venial sins and sins of omission and the mortal sins and more serious sins of commission. I believe that the amendments go some way towards doing that.

Many of us have been looking at various claims and other things, and I found myself listed among those who had made repayments in the recent context. I refused an offer of a new mobile phone from O₂, and was then told that I would get £200. I thought that that would be credit on my mobile phone bill, but instead I got a cheque for that amount as cashback. Normally, I claim most bills for the phone on expenses, so I said that the cashback should go back to that source of payment, which is the House of Commons. The £200 payment was not in respect of any specific claim, or any claim that was wrong or undue, but it constituted a repayment in the context of everything else that was happening.

Clearly, hon. Members must be allowed to make sensible and proper judgments without finding themselves with some sort of criminal record. We are doing something that is on a par with tidying up The Highway Code, and it should not end up with people being investigated as though they were involved in some sort of federal case.

I have some sympathy with the situation that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) found himself in. He was caught in a conundrum but, for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I am wary of creating a system that means that everything could automatically be the subject of legal advice. People may feel compelled to seek that advice, but the fact that such advice was being sought could also became a matter of record and freedom of information.

The way that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) presented new clauses 5 and 11 made them sound reasonable and compelling, but again I have some concern that investigations could turn into hearings. We must not let the process grow beyond its limits, and I believe that the test will be how we strike that balance.

rose—

rose—

Mr. Dominic Grieve.

This has been an interesting debate, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond positively to the points that have been raised.

Some of us want to take part in it.

Order. Let me make it clear that there is no reason why hon. Members may not take part. Those hon. Members who stand are called to speak in the way that the Chair thinks appropriate. Mr. Dominic Grieve.

Thank you, Sir Michael. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond positively. It is clear that clause 7 moves us towards a much more structured system of investigation than we have at present. Whether or not the current investigation regime falls within what we like to call parliamentary privilege, it certainly happens in-House. I am the first to accept that much of what will be investigated probably will not concern parliamentary privilege in any way at all, and that is why investigating whether an MP has misclaimed or overclaimed is of very little consequence to the wider constitutional framework of this country.

However, if we move down this road, it is important that we acknowledge that we will have to look very carefully at the fairness of the system that we introduce. It will come in for more scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was right to say that it will be justiciable—that is, anyone unhappy with any aspect of the proceedings will be able to seek judicial review.

In that context, the amendments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) are extremely sensible. They would allow people to self-refer, but the most telling proposal is for a system that would allow very minor matters to be handled without a report having to be made.

One problem that we will face was touched on by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In a sense, Members of Parliament are sole practitioners, and we handle offices and budgets that are quite substantial. Also, I suspect that most Members of Parliament work rather longer hours than the average, and that the administration of our offices is not the thing that we do best. Our capacity for making mistakes is very great.

I shall be brief, but there are two points that I would like to put to the House. Parliaments tend to get known by particular names. The other week in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) talked about how this Parliament would come to be known in the future. I fear that it may go down as the tarnished or tainted Parliament. Among those of us who have sat in this Chamber in the past few weeks, it will certainly go down as the depressed Parliament. I look forward to the next Parliament and hope that its Members can perform their duties untrammelled, both here and in their constituencies.

However, we must have regard to one overriding fact in that context. The new Parliament, no matter who decides to go or stay, will contain many new Members. Some papers calculate that half the new Parliament could be composed of Members who have never sat here before. However many new Members there are, it will be a lot. Those new Members will come here, as we all did at one stage, somewhat overwhelmed by the honour of being here, I trust, and somewhat perplexed by the rules of our procedures, which we all have to try to learn. There will be a new dimension, too, provided by the Bill, which the House is rushing through this week. It worries me very much that that new Parliament could come to be known as the frightened Parliament, or the blighted Parliament.

Just think of the enormous scope that there will be for vexatious and frivolous complaints, yet according to the Bill, every one of those complaints will have to be investigated. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an excellent speech when he moved amendment 9. He referred to the fact that when a Member is under investigation, he or she is under a cloud until it is completed. We all know from our constituencies that if we read that somebody has been arrested on a particular charge, a question mark automatically flashes up in our minds about the integrity of that person, even though we all subscribe to “innocent until proven guilty”. How dreadful it would be if 50 or 60—the number could even run to three figures—new colleagues in a new Parliament were subject to some form of orchestrated complaint, or to a series of complaints. That is quite possible.

I was very impressed by the speech of my friend, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who talked about his payback. Just think of the deterrent to saying “Mea culpa.” A Member may say, “Oh, good gracious me. I didn’t look sufficiently carefully at that, and now I have signed it off and all those letters have gone out. Let’s be quiet about it.” Members could be frightened, their careers could be blighted, and they could feel deeply self-conscious. All those factors will make it less easy for them to be effective Members of Parliament.

When we finish considering the Bill today—I deplore the fact that we are dealing with it in such haste—we must bear in mind that we are agreeing a piece of legislation that will not particularly impinge on many Members in the House at the moment. By the time that it is fully in force, it will probably be the turn of the year; the Justice Secretary made that point. However, by May or June next year, there will be a new Parliament. If the Act, as it will then be, hangs above that Parliament like the sword of Damocles, just think of the effect that that could have. I therefore beg the Secretary of State to accept the amendments—or, at the very least, their spirit—and to try to inject into the Bill a note of discernment and discrimination between the trivial and the serious. If he does not, we will pass an Act that will have a very bad effect on the next Parliament.

I just want to say a brief word about amendment 10 and new clause 11. I am a strong supporter of amendment 10, which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), for the reasons that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). It is entirely right to say that individual Members could face vexatious complaints, and that would be very bad because it would put the hon. Member in question under a serious cloud and inhibit him or her in the performance of his or her duties.

One cannot exclude the possibility of co-ordinated and coherent campaigns against individual Members, in which vexatious complaints are made. The amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend addresses that, in part, by providing for the hon. Member in question to make a repayment, if the sum involved is modest and if there has been an oversight. The amendment would guard against errors of a de minimis kind. I think that the Justice Secretary is saying that he is minded to accept the amendment. If he does not, let us hope that he will accept the spirit of what my right hon. Friend is doing.

I note that new clause 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), has the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because the amendment is drawn from the text of the Committee’s report. It also has the support of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Those are two all-party committees of considerable authority, and the fact that they are both signed up to the new clause seems to be of considerable importance. As the hon. Gentleman said, the commissioner’s report could have dire consequences for the future of any right hon. or hon. Member affected by that report. That is even more true of the IPSA report. It is therefore important that the House should try to ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause ensures that that happens.

I have only one proviso to make. The process has two stages—at least, it does at the moment, but there may be more later. The first stage is the investigation by the commissioner, leading to a report to IPSA. IPSA is then obliged to enable the right hon. or hon. Member to make representations, so there is a second stage. I am not entirely clear—this is a matter for further consideration—about whether all the protection afforded by new clause 11 should apply to both stages or one stage. That is a matter on which there needs to be some reflection. My feeling, at this stage, is that the full panoply of the protections should apply to the hearing of the representations by IPSA, and that there should be a lesser stage of protection relating to the inquiry undertaken by the commissioner. The commissioner should be obliged to accord quite a lot of protection to the hon. Member concerned, but not the full panoply that is contemplated in new clause 11. That full panoply should be confined to the IPSA hearing.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the construction of new clause 11, he will see that it does exactly what he suggests; it is confined to the IPSA procedure by a cross-reference to clause 7(5).

I had not fully understood that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that plain, because the full panoply is probably best directed at the IPSA hearing, rather than at the preliminary hearing.

Like many of these debates, this has been an interesting one. I shall deal with the amendments by grouping them together.

First, I accept amendment 9, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), as it is entirely right to add it to the Bill. I accept amendment 11, too, and there should be no argument about that. I shall also accept amendment 10, but I want to add a gloss. Sometimes one has reservations about amendments, although one accepts their overall principle. If there are questions about their drafting or their full impact, one might ask the Member who tabled them to withdraw them and wait for the matter to return at a later stage.

On amendment 10, I accept entirely the argument made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that the cases captured by proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) will be relatively trivial and so on, so it would be ridiculous to have the full panoply of a report to the authority without any discretion in the hands of the commissioner. I am therefore going to accept the amendment, but I reserve the right—of course, it will be a matter for the House and the other place—to submit a revised drafting. I will consult the right hon. Gentleman about this, but if a member of the public—and we are not talking about vexatious complaints; if they are vexatious, hopefully they can be dismissed at an early stage—makes a genuine complaint it is important that even if there is no formal report by the commissioner, they are told what has happened. We must check that that is the case.

I am thinking of myself, too, because I was the subject of a complaint to the commissioner, which would receive consideration by IPSA, and a complaint was made in respect of a separate matter to the Electoral Commission. It made a difference to me to be able to spell out the conclusion, which was that I could continue to be a Member of Parliament. The most recent complaint was about my repetition of an entirely inadvertent error by my constituency party treasurer, who received a donation that he misrecorded, without misleading anybody—it was from one of two companies owned by the same person—and I repeated the error, because I obtained the information from him. How else could I have obtained it? The newspapers made quite a lot of the fact that I had been referred to the Electoral Commission by a Member of the House, and it took a bit of work to get them to accept that there was a further story, and that I had been cleared by the Electoral Commission. We must bear that in mind.

I hope that that deals with those amendments satisfactorily. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough have continued their clean sweep—every one a winner—so I shall now turn to the other amendments. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) tabled amendment 45, which states:

“The IPSA must ensure that any member who is subject of an investigation is provided with independent advice and counsel on all matters relevant to that investigation.”

It is important that we do not over-egg the pudding and seek to provide ourselves—and the implication is that this would be provided free—with something that is not available to others in similar circumstances. The availability of civil legal aid has been restricted for a long time. Although the costs of such aid continue to rise, eligibility, particularly outside the area of family law, is restricted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is confirming that that is the case. Civil legal aid is also subject to means-testing, and it would be improper of the House to establish by means of a single amendment—I know that the hon. Member for North Essex does not intend this—a Rolls-Royce of a legal aid scheme for ourselves that is not available to others.

We all have constituents in that situation—I have one at the moment—who are subject to a process by their employer that could lead to dismissal and be reputationally terminal. They do not receive legal aid, although they may receive legal assistance from their trade union, so we must bear that in mind in relation to the question of fairness.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, I do not intend that the Exchequer should end up providing legal aid to Members of Parliament. I am talking about practical, reasonably expert advice that might result in a Clerk of the House saying, “Go and get a lawyer. You’re in trouble.” Before reaching that stage, there should be provision for some advice. If I may say so, the exception for Members of Parliament is justified in this case, given that we are creating offences that apply only to Members of Parliament, who are particularly vulnerable to attack from members of the public who may have grudges against us for some peculiar reason.