Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

I beg to move, That Mr. Philip John Courtney Mawer be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 598, dated 6th February. On behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I warmly recommend to the House the name of Mr. Philip Mawer as the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms set out in our report to the House.

The previous debate showed clearly the complexity of the commissioner's job and the qualities of toughness and persistence that are required; Mr. Mawer has those qualities in full measure.

I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. It is no secret that the past few weeks have not been happy ones on either side, but it is right that we should acknowledge her dedication to her work on behalf of the House. She undertook a number of difficult and complicated investigations and brought them to a successful conclusion. We believe that her work, together with the Standards and Privileges Committee's consideration of her reports, has fully validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation set up following the first Nolan report. I will have a word to say about that system shortly.

Like many other hon. Members, I have known and respected Mr. Mawer for his work as secretary-general of the General Synod, and more recently as secretary-general of the Archbishops' Council. He is a person of clear vision, absolute integrity and strong moral values. You would not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find those qualities in someone who has held the highest lay post in the Church of England.

Philip Mawer has much more to offer. He is a man of immense ability. He was principal private secretary to the Home Secretary, and when he was barely 40 he held one of the key jobs at under-secretary level in the Cabinet Office. Ten years before, as a relatively junior official, he was secretary to Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton riots. Lord Scarman, whose views we would all respect, described Philip Mawer as a very clever and hard-working man, with tremendous mastery of detail. Mr. Mawer is a brilliant man in handling questions of principle. Since then, his career has borne out Lord Scarman's assessment.

It is reasonable to ask and answer two questions: Mr. Mawer may be clever, but is he tough enough? Is he not a bit of an insider? The House may not be surprised to hear that Church of England politics are at least as tough as anything that we are used to in this place, although the vocabulary used may be a little more restrained. The issues with which Mr. Mawer has grappled in his present job include the ordination of women, the role of bishops in another place—for the avoidance of doubt, I use our conventional phrase to mean the House of Lords rather than any more exalted forum—and racial discrimination. Such issues are neither simple nor easy.

In one of Mr. Mawer's previous posts he was responsible for Prison Service discipline. In another post, he was head of industrial relations for the Prison Service. A private secretary to one of the most senior members of Government also needs to be pretty tough. The House 225 of Commons Commission has no doubt that, as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will be as tough as it takes. To use a phrase I used on television, he frightens the life out of me, so I do not know what he will do to our colleagues.

Is Mr. Mawer an insider? He certainly knows a good deal about this place and about politicians, which can only be a good thing. However, I inform anyone who thinks that familiarity will make him a soft touch that that is not likely to be the case. There is no shortage of people to testify to the fact that Philip Mawer is his own man and, if the House approves the motion, we will all soon come to know and respect his personal authority and independence.

Some may think that my description is of a rather fearsome person. No doubt, Philip Mawer can be fearsome when he wants to be, but he is also a man of understanding and trust. He will pull no punches in his reports, but he is someone whom I for one will readily consult in the certainty that our conversations will remain entirely private.

The Commission's report describes the selection process. We were determined to follow best practice for an appointment of this importance, and the interview board that produced the shortlist included two external members—Sir Gordon Downey and Lord Newton of Braintree, who is better known to us all as Tony Newton. In addition, the later stages of the sifting process, the meetings of the interview board and the final interviews by the Commission were observed by Ms Sheila Drew Smith, an independent assessor recommended by the Commission for Public Appointments. I should like to thank all three for their expert contributions, which were much appreciated.

Our report also notes that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, joined us for the final interviews. We were very glad to have his help, and to draw on his detailed knowledge of the work of the Committee and the commissioners. We look forward to hearing his views on the level of resources required to support the new commissioner's work, and to co-operating closely with him and his Committee.

I shall say a brief word about resources. Mr. Mawer's appointment will initially be on the basis that he will work three days a week, but it will be for him to judge how much time is required. If he thinks that four or five days a week are needed, there will be no difficulty about that.

§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will my hon. Friend say why the commissioner will work for three days? The job of the commissioner who is leaving was advertised as requiring four days a week. More relevantly, she believes that the job should take up more than three days. I know that some would be happy if the job occupied only one day in the week, but I should have thought that four days would be far more suitable than three.

§ Mr. Bell

I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said in the previous debate that the work of his Committee had now concluded. Therefore, we will begin with a clean sheet. If the work requires three, four or five days a week, it will get three, four or five days. A pro rata increase in Mr. Mawer's salary would take that into account.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

I do not think that the Committee's work is finished; other inquiries are 226 going on, and the former commissioner was dealing with them. The Committee will continue to make inquiries. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the false impression that everything was suddenly clean, neat and orderly.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Commission found it necessary to give a large amount of backpay to the commissioner who has just resigned, as a result of the extra work that she had done? Will he also confirm that the commissioners did not act on the audit of the work that she was doing until after she had gone, and that she had been working under tremendous pressures? Will he explain—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) enough to answer.

§ Mr. Bell

With regard to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I was simply repeating a point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire in his statement in the previous debate—that the publication of the report that we discussed earlier concluded a particular piece of work. No doubt there will be other work in the pipeline.

I have no knowledge of the second matter raised by my hon. Friend. I should be happy to send him a written reply and, if necessary, place it in the Library.

§ Mr. McNamara

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I am sorry to delay the House. Will he say how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up his post in full, given that he might work only one, two or three days a week?

§ Mr. Bell

My hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph.

§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to catch your eye a little later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As a former member of the Commission, the question of procedure and process is of great concern to me. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the commissioner would, if necessary, work more than three days a week. Is that provision formally and clearly set out in a proper contract of employment?

§ Mr. Bell

The answer to that question is yes.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, Mr. Mawer expects, if appointed by the House, to begin work from the beginning of March. Initially, he will work one or two days a week. The House will understand that it will take him a little while to relinquish his present responsibilities, but he will increase his commitment as quickly as he can. Those who know Philip Mawer as well as I do know that he will fulfil all the obligations thrust upon him, given that there are seven days in a week.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Does the hon. Gentleman not find it somewhat surprising that, although the House of Commons has lost the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards under what he described as 227 unfortunate circumstances, our first opportunity to debate that is in a debate on the appointment of a new commissioner? Was that the view of the Commission, of which he is a member, or was the timing of the debate a matter for the usual channels?

§ Mr. Bell

The appropriate procedure is for the House of Commons Commission to propose the nomination of a candidate in a report presented to the House of Commons by the Speaker. The report was printed on 6 February and presented to the House; this is the first opportunity to debate it.

The House's internal revenue service is considering the staffing resources that the commissioner's office will require and we expect it to report to us shortly. We will then take the views of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the new commissioner, and we have undertaken to provide whatever resources are judged to be needed.

I said that I would return to self-regulation. Our present system was introduced following the recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee. Sir Gordon Downey, the first commissioner, pointed out in a recent article that the House went further than the Nolan committee recommended by giving the commissioner responsibility for assessing whether a case had been made as well as whether there was a case to answer. Sir Gordon also described the introduction of self-regulation as a major step for the House to take. Since Charles I and before, the Commons had spent much of its time resisting attempts by the monarchy to control it and the courts had no jurisdiction over it. Yet voluntarily, in 1995, the House subjected itself to outside scrutiny by a non-elected person. This was not a negligible reform. There has been much discussion of late in the media about parliamentary self-regulation. In my view, self-regulation has to work; outside regulation could create profound constitutional difficulties. It is also my view that self-regulation works and that it will continue to do so. The key elements are the wise guidance and non-partisan recommendations that we expect from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and his Committee, the readiness of all of us to co-operate fully with the system and a strong, independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Mr. Mawer has all the qualities needed to ensure that the system of parliamentary self-regulation continues to work effectively, and that it is seen to do so both inside and outside the House of Commons.

§ Mrs. Browning

I have now had a chance to see the Speaker's paper, especially its provisions on resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pressing this point again, but it is pertinent to what I would like to say later if I get the opportunity. Has the new commissioner been given a formal written contract of employment—as we would understand the term in commercial environments, and as opposed to a job description—that clearly sets out not only the parameters and conditions of the job but the processes to be applied when disputes arise. I note that resources have now been brought under the remit of the IRS and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is extremely important, however, if the new commissioner is not to experience 228 the same difficulties as the previous commissioner, that there is a contract of employment that can be made available to members of the House of Commons Commission.

§ Mr. Bell

There certainly is a contract. It is a proper contract and, although I believe that it may be confidential, it covers all the points that the hon. Lady raises.

With that, I commend the motion to the House, and I commend Mr. Mawer to the House.

§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

I should like briefly to endorse the speech made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and thank the Commission for allowing me to take part in the selection process to choose the new commissioner. The Committee on Standards and Privileges clearly has an interest in that appointment and I know that its members welcomed representation in the decision-making process. I found that process thorough and professional. We were confronted with some high-calibre candidates and, as a result, a difficult choice.

I welcome the decision to appoint Philip Mawer. He understands the House of Commons, but is independent of it. In my judgment, he has the right qualities of trust and discretion to develop the preventive and advisory role of the commissioner, to conduct investigations thoroughly and impartially and to prepare reports for the Committee. I look forward to working with him when he starts in March.

As the hon. Gentleman just said, Mr. Mawer's work will be especially important as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks, begins its review of self-regulation in the House of Commons.

I welcome the Commission's comments on resources, the fact that there is no restriction on the number of days that the commissioner will work and the recognition that the resources deemed necessary will be made available. That is welcome reassurance for my Committee.

Finally, may I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin? As Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I enjoyed a good working relationship with her. I admire the qualities that she brought to the job. She handled some complex issues—one of which we have just debated—with thoroughness, impartiality and some courage. She displayed the independence that is a key part of the role of the commissioner. I thank her for her work and wish her well in the future.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I want to echo some of the points that have been made before returning to some more formidable points that the House might briefly consider.

I endorse exactly what the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges said about Elizabeth Filkin; she genuinely will be a difficult act to follow. We often use that phrase, but it is true in this case. Mr. Philip Mawer's curriculum vitae gives me every reason to believe that he is an admirable person to try to do this difficult job on our behalf.

229 We should recognise that over the past few months the perception of our ability to regulate our conduct in this place has been, at best, under attack. Some would say that our ability has been weakened; our role needs to be reviewed.

I hope, however, that hon. Members and people watching, listening to or following our proceedings will take comfort from the way in which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee approached the difficult issue that we addressed a few moments ago. The report is admirable and will, I hope, restore to some extent confidence outside and inside this place in our ability to self-regulate.

I note the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about our being looked at by Sir Nigel Wicks and his colleagues. I hope that the evidence taken by Sir Nigel will not be all negative. I hope that he will see some merit in the way in which we have handled such matters in the recent past as well as some points for inquiry and possibly criticism and improvement.

I hope that Sir Nigel will look carefully at the crucial relationship between the work of the commissioner and that of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in performing the difficult and sometimes invidious task of self-regulation. On many occasions, Members of the House and people outside this place have drawn my attention to the fact that that relationship is critical in achieving effective self-regulation. I am concerned that, on occasion, either the Committee has not seen that role with quite the clarity or definition that we would have hoped for, or the commissioner has found it difficult to see the proper frontier between his or her role and that of the Committee.

As one Member put it to me, it is surely the role of the commissioner to act as the linesman—to put up the flag—but it is the responsibility of the Committee to act as referee. That may not be a perfect way to describe the respective roles, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has some validity.

I share some of the anxiety that Members on both sides of the House expressed about how soon the new commissioner will be able to take up a full role and perform the full task that we are laying upon him. Initially—in a matter of weeks—he will be able to give us one day a week. If, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) responds to the debate, I hope that he will say how quickly we will progress to the absolute minimum requirement of three days; otherwise, a backlog will inevitably build up in a matter of months.

What period of notice do Mr. Mawer's ecclesiastical employers want him to work? Is he under a great obligation to them or, indeed, to a higher authority? [Interruption.] Hand signals are being given to me from across the House, although I do know not whether they are the result of divine intervention. A substantial backlog could be created within a matter of months, which would lead to a problem. We must hope that no cases are brought to the new commissioner's attention, but if they are it would clearly be unsatisfactory if his terms of employment failed to meet the needs of the House.

The House has not covered itself in glory by dealing with the matter as it has done in recent months—a view that is widely shared within it. Even if the media have been over-critical in some respects and have jumped to 230 conclusions, I am afraid that we have given them some cause to do so. We sometimes get the press that we deserve, and on this occasion we have.

I have a particular concern that is not new; indeed, I expressed it when the Braithwaite inquiry examined the way in which the House conducts its business, runs the building and performs its work. It seems invidious that we cannot question the Chairman of the Commission. Despite the responsibilities that we lay on the Speaker, we cannot challenge, question or probe him in the House. The issue before us should have brought that concern to our immediate attention.

I expressed that concern to Braithwaite in the different context of the financial management of the House, which involves millions of pounds. None the less, it is wrong to ask the Speaker to chair the Commission on our behalf, given that he cannot be accountable to, or answerable to, the House. We cannot question the Speaker in that manner, because to do so would endanger his authority in many other ways.

I hope that the Leader of the House, the Commission and the Speaker will look again at the problem, because it is likely to recur time and again if we do not address it now. That implies no criticism of successive Speakers or of successive members of the Commission. Back Benchers who are non-ex officio members of the Commission—at the moment there are two, but there will be three—serve the House in that capacity without payment, reward or recognition. Usually, they receive only brickbats, and we should think carefully about that. That role has been particularly onerous in recent months, and has subjected them to much criticism. I hope that we can consider that issue.

I pay full respect not only to the commissioner but to the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee undertook its responsibilities in particularly difficult circumstances in recent weeks. I enthusiastically endorse the nomination before us, but I hope that the Leader of the House and all those with a role in other parts of the building will think carefully about the issues that I have raised.

§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I begin by wishing the new parliamentary commissioner well—it would be wrong to do otherwise—and I hope that he will carry out his duties in the way that we would all wish. Indeed, I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the circumstances in which Elizabeth Filkin is leaving today are, to say the least, disquieting. My speech will be critical of the fact that her contract has not been renewed. If that is a minority point of view, so be it; it is mine and I want to explain why I have reached that conclusion.

When the House debated Elizabeth Filkin's appointment on 17 November 1998, there was much praise for the way in which she had carried out her previous duties.

I have given the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) notice that I shall refer to his remarks, and I make no criticism of him. He said of Mrs. Filkin: I encountered her when she was adjudicator for the Inland Revenue. I was impressed by her commitment to her job and her staff, but, crucially, I was impressed by the fact that she retained the confidence of the Revenue, the body that she was investigating. That showed that she was fair, and that her work commanded respect. 231 Likewise, I sent a note to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was then a Home Office Under-Secretary. She spoke on behalf of the Leader of the House and said of Elizabeth Filkin: Her recent role as the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security Contributions Agency will ensure that she brings to the post a wealth of experience and a reputation for independence and integrity."—[Official Report, 17 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 809-21.] Of course, that did not necessarily mean that the arrangement would work in practice, but my argument is that Mrs. Filkin brought to the position the qualities mentioned by those two Members. She is leaving because she was too independent and too determined to be fobbed off in the investigations. That is why her contract was not renewed.

Those qualities—independence and determination—are normally thought to be admirable, not a reason for what amounts to dismissal. Although I have encountered criticism of Mrs. Filkin—not in the Chamber, but around the place—I have not heard a single Member say that she is politically biased for or against any particular party. In view of the investigation she carried out, any such accusation would be laughable.

It is strongly denied that there was any whispering campaign against Mrs. Filkin, but she clearly does not accept that, as stated in the correspondence between her and the Speaker. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that perhaps the question of who chairs the Commission should be considered. I make no criticism of the Speaker, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to quote the Speaker in debate, and one does not wish to do so because it is rather invidious. That is the situation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, the House of Commons praised the work undertaken by Mrs. Filkin. Indeed, she is praised in the House of Commons Commission document. Fine words, but this question is inevitable: if she carried out her duties in such a manner, why was she not reappointed?

Mrs. Filkin wrote to the Speaker on 28 November, and it is important for her view as set out in that letter to be heard: I wrote to the Clerk of the House on 5 November 2001 to request that you explain to me why it has been decided that, exceptionally, I would not be offered a second term. I have received no explanation. The Leader of the House, in response to a question about this new procedure of readvertising the post after one term, said that it had been adopted in the interests of openness and transparency. This is hard to accept. This arrangement was not required in the case of my predecessor, nor, it appears from the published advertisement, will it be for my successor. It is up to the House to decide with what seriousness to take the following comment—I take it very seriously. She said: Security of position, which this decision violates, was established in relation to my predecessor. It applies across the board to Nolan-inspired posts which require independence and impartiality. Job security in such posts matters because it allows, where necessary, conclusions to be reached which may be unpopular with the employer in the short term. Clearly, Mrs. Filkin is not leaving because she wished to do so. Clearly, she would have been willing to carry on in the position if her contract had been renewed. As I have said, we have had no explanation.

232 Why has not the present parliamentary commissioner, who will be leaving this week, been offered the position? It is said that she can apply for her own position—a rather humiliating situation, even if there was any chance that she would be accepted. Would a single hon. Member who is in the Chamber now say that, if Mrs. Filkin had gone through the humiliating procedure of applying for her own job, she would have stood a chance? No—the silence is adequate. The real criticism against Mrs. Filkin was not that she spoke to the press or that she involved herself in matters outside her remit. I do not believe that those allegations have any substance.

§ Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mrs. Filkin was regularly quoted in the press, including statements that she made on a Saturday, for example? How does he account for her having such ready access to the press on a day when servants are normally not available?

§ David Winnick

If the press rang the parliamentary commissioner and she was conducting an investigation, I see no reason why she should not have said so.

§ Several hon. Members

rose—

§ David Winnick

I shall give way in a moment; I am replying to an intervention. Let us be clear—are we saying that, in effect, Mrs. Filkin has not been reappointed because she spoke to the press? If so, we should have had an explanation from the House of Commons Commission. Allegations about speaking to the press should be made official; let the House of Commons Commission say so, and we would then have an explanation that we could accept or reject. I do not think that we can work on the basis of what my hon. Friend has just said. I have a great deal of genuine respect for him, but I do not believe that that is a good explanation.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to make a differentiation about speaking to the press? Mrs. Filkin was entitled to speak to them about the nature of her work and her office, and we should not to impute from that that she was guilty of leaks, which she was not. I hope to deal with that later.

§ David Winnick

I entirely agree. I do not believe that she was responsible for leaking information in any way whatever, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has cleared that up.

§ Mr. Salmond

Would not the right way to bring complaints about our Standards Commissioner have been through the House of Commons Commission to the Floor of the House, where those issues could have been properly examined, debated and, I suspect, largely dismissed?

§ David Winnick

Indeed. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, it was up to the House of Commons Commission to deal with such issues. On reflection, it accepts that, in many ways, matters could have been dealt with very differently.

The critics say that Mrs. Filkin lacked a sense of balance and that she could not distinguish between serious allegations and those that were not in that category. Again, I do not believe that that was the case. She had a 233 duty to investigate fully. After all, until she investigated, how could she know whether the allegations had any substance? Let us not forget that this is not the Inland Revenue; this is a political battlefield. Hon. Members on each side of the House will make accusations against the other, as political ammunition. We are in politics—that is part of democracy. Such allegations are made, and it is up to the parliamentary commissioner to investigate them, recognising the place in which she undertakes her duties. She simply cannot say that they are tit-for-tat matters; she has to decide whether they have any substance.

The impression that one gets from the critics is that Mrs. Filkin had a wish to do down the Commons and make adverse reports as often as she could. I cannot for the life of me see why she should have any such motive. Why should she wish to do down the House of Commons?

An hon. Member, whom I shall not mention by constituency or name—I could not mention him by name in any case—told me today that he had been treated very fairly by the Standards Commissioner. He was one of several hon. Members who told me that the commissioner had asked to see them after allegations had been made about them as individuals, sometimes—as in the case of the hon. Member that I mentioned—allegations that were made outside the House. Such Members said that they were very impressed. They were heard courteously, their explanation was accepted, or very nearly accepted, and the commissioner made no adverse report but gave good advice. It is unfortunate that those hon. Members have not said that in today's debate; it would perhaps have given a sense of balance to what is happening.

When the parliamentary commissioner thought that there had been an infringement of the rules relating to outside financial interests, she said so regardless of position and seniority, and certainly party. Is not that what we wanted from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? Is not that the way in which we wanted the work to be carried out?

If we are to continue with self-regulation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has said should be the case, there is an argument that responsibility for appointing and renewing the contract of the parliamentary commissioner should be given to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If that were to happen, the recommended person would be subject, or otherwise, to the confirmation of the House, and then of course the House would debate accordingly. However, self-regulation has its difficulties. We are saying, in effect, that we should appoint the parliamentary commissioner and decide whether the contract should be renewed. By following that procedure, we arrived at the present very unhappy position.

It gives me no satisfaction whatever to have been so critical, but I am, as my remarks have obviously shown. I repeat that I would have liked the parliamentary commissioner to be reappointed. It was a shabby aspect of the whole matter that she was not reappointed to her position, and Elizabeth Filkin is leaving in circumstances that do not bring much credit to the House of Commons.

Mrs. Filkin can leave with a sense of pride, because she has carried out her duties in the way that she promised when appointed. She has been impartial and conscientious. She has acted honourably at all times—that is my view and seems to be the view of the House of Commons Commission—and has undertaken her duties 234 with undoubted ability. She is going—let us have no illusions on this score—simply because she has been too conscientious. That is why Elizabeth Filkin will be leaving the services of the House of Commons this week. By not renewing her contract—by allowing her to leave in such circumstances and without good reason—I believe that we have let ourselves down.

§ Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

To summarise what I am about to say, I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).

I also agree with the nomination put forward for our approval by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The House of Commons Commission and those who helped it have made a good choice. I imagine that if they had not chosen Mr. Philip Mawer, they would have picked someone just about as good. They follow in the line of those who chose Sir Gordon Downey and Elizabeth Filkin.

No criticism can be made of the quality of the people who have been nominated to serve our country by being employed as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

There is a question of fact about who the commissioner is actually employed by. We are told that it is the House of Commons Commission, but I have looked at the 23rd annual report of the House of Commons Commission, trying to find a reference to the Commission's responsibilities in employing the commissioner. I have not found one.

Opening the report at random—say, in the middle where the staples are—I see that the Serjeant at Arms Department uses traffic lights to denote whether targets have been met. If they were used to test the Commission's actions over the past year with regard to the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the traffic light would not be smiling as it is on page 44 because performance is below target.

I do not intend to criticise any individual on the Commission, although I will get fairly close to that with the Leader of the House. In August last year, an article in the Financial Times reported Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, is unlikely to have her contract renewed when it expires in January—despite recent supportive comments from Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons. It goes on to say that the remarks by the Leader of the House in the previous month were designed to 'cool' the whispering campaign against Ms Filkin and that his words should not be interpreted as his formal backing that she should stay on. I do not want to ask the Leader of the House to explain how those remarks got into the newspaper. All I want to do is to use them as evidence that it was on the record and known to the House of Commons Commission by then that there was a whispering campaign against the commissioner.

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook)

The hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to ask me about that, but with his permission I will respond. I checked my diary after he raised this matter in the House some time ago. In the two weeks preceding 20 August, I was not 235 in London; I was in Edinburgh. I spoke to no one from the Financial Times throughout that period and can shed no light on how those words appeared there. If he is suggesting that I communicated them to the Financial Times, I hope that he will withdraw the comment.

§ Peter Bottomley

I would, but I did not suggest that. The right hon. Gentleman should be slightly less sensitive.

§ Mr. Cook

I am being criticised; of course I am sensitive

§ Peter Bottomley

The right hon. Gentleman should wait until I get around to the criticism. So far, he has responded to a question that I explicitly did not put to him. I accept what he says and have not contradicted him. He has not faced an accusation.

I was making the point that people knew about the whispering campaign. If the House of Commons Commission was fulfilling the role of employer and also, therefore, protector, of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it needs to ask itself collectively whether any action was taken on the whispering campaigns against her before the Speaker's letter. I believe that the whispering campaign started long before that. The Commission should have taken action that would at least have become known to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

§ Mr. Bell

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about why the Commission did not intervene in the so-called whispering campaign. The Speaker wrote to Elizabeth Filkin but she was unable to supply evidence. Had the letter been sent earlier, there would have still been no evidence.

§ Peter Bottomley

The hon. Gentleman did better in the first part of that sentence. The Speaker, in his role as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission rather than in his role as Speaker—the distinction is not important and I am not criticising him in any way—wrote the letter in November. The Financial Times had the report in August and it only confirmed what many people already knew about the attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by those who felt vulnerable.

All I am trying to establish is that the House of Commons Commission or a member of it first asked the commissioner about a whispering campaign in November. The letter could have been better drafted. It could have said that the Commission would protect the person fulfilling the function of the commissioner, whether or not the whispering campaign and the pressure were having an effect on that person.

It is some years since I gave up my fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which used to be called the Institute of Personnel Management. However, my experience in personnel management is extensive. I have had ministerial and professional responsibility for it, and I know a lot about it.

What has happened to the present commissioner would, in most employments, be an open-and-shut case of unfair, constructive dismissal. I shall illustrate that with one example.

236 Answers from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who answers for the House of Commons Commission, say that the Commission knows that the commissioner has been working for five days a week. The Commission knows that it has been paying her for four days a week. It advertised her job at three days a week.

I turn now to the Leader of the House. On several occasions in the past two months, he has repeated the abbreviated remark, which is true, that the commissioner could apply for her job up to the moment when the applicants on the shortlist were interviewed. There is not a single recorded occasion on which the Leader of the House, speaking as a senior member of the Government and close associate of the Prime Minister, as the representative of the House or as a member of the House of Commons Commission, acknowledged in public that what he failed to say is that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she currently does for five days a week, on condition that she applied to do it for three days a week with 60 per cent. of her present work load.

§ Mr. Robin Cook

indicated dissent,.

§ Peter Bottomley

When the Leader of the House shakes his head, I assume that he is agreeing with me.

§ Mr. Cook

rose—

§ Peter Bottomley

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will say when, on the Floor of the House, he said that the commissioner could apply for her job, which she is doing for five days a week, but she had to apply to do it for three days a week.

§ Mr. Cook

I am very happy to respond by saying that what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not true. If the commissioner had applied for and got the job, she could certainly have asked to be appointed on the present basis, which is four days a week. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that if we had appointed her and she had sought to work for four days, then, just as with Mr. Mawer, she would have got four days. There is no question of her having been invited to apply on the basis of a cut in pay or hours.

§ Peter Bottomley

I shall not repeat it more than once, but my point is that I have not found a recorded occasion in the House in the past two months—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman would do better to listen. I have not found a recorded occasion in the past two months when he has stated the additional fact that he was inviting the commissioner to reapply for her job although it was advertised at three days a week. Not only was that fact not explicit; it was not mentioned at all.

We know that the commissioner was working five days a week, that the advertisement was for three days a week and that there had been a row about that reduction, but the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned that. From his reported remarks it sounded as though the commissioner could carry on as long as she applied—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Sedentary interventions do not help the debate.

§ Peter Bottomley

With the Leader of the House chuntering away like that, I almost feel that I should apologise for speaking. The point has been made, and I think that he accepts it.

§ Mr. Cook

If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I will reply to his allegations.

§ Peter Bottomley

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Cook

For the avoidance of doubt, there was never any suggestion, to Mrs. Filkin or to anyone else, that if she applied for the job and was reappointed, there would be a cut in pay or a cut in hours. Had she been reappointed, she would have retained her pay and her four days a week. Although the job was advertised at three days, we have made it plain in the House on several occasions that we were willing to discuss with whoever was appointed the number of days that that person would work. Indeed, I seem to recall my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) saying precisely that in relation to Mr. Mawer

§ Peter Bottomley

The Leader of the House will be able to read what I said, and I hope that when he has done so, he will understand that his interventions have been off the point. I said that I would repeat what I had said only once, so I will not go on with that point.

We now come to the question of when the House of Commons Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, decided to pay the commissioner for the extra days that she has been working, when up to now she has not been paid for them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough for saying that if a written question is tabled, the House will be given that information. I think that the answer will confirm my belief.

No one on the Commission has been motivated by malice. However, the Commission's responses to certain matters included a combination of mistakes and misunderstandings, and an impression of apparent malice on the part of some people outside the Commission has been created.

Some inaccurate answers have been given which the Commission has, rightly, corrected. For example, it gave an answer that said that Sir Gordon Downey had been working—and been paid for—three days a week. In fact, he was always paid for four days a week. When he left his post, he said that if the work load decreased, the job could be done in three days a week, and that may have been the comment that people had in mind. It was a simple misunderstanding and the mistake has been corrected.

What was not correct was an assurance that the Leader of the House gave me in October, I believe. He asserted—which I think means that he thought, but did not know—that the Commission had followed the advice by which the House expects Ministers to abide in the code on public appointments. That assertion was wrong in three respects.

First, if someone is not up to the job, they should not have the chance to be reappointed. From the right hon. Gentleman's saying that if Elizabeth Filkin reapplied, she would immediately be put on the shortlist—and, 238 we presume, treated fairly and on her merits—we deduce that she was not only up to the job, but proven to be so to the extent that she would have reached the shortlist.

Elizabeth Filkin was as competent as her predecessor, Sir Gordon Downey, who was sounded out, not officially by the Commission but by a senior member of the Government, about whether he would be interested in a second term. Having reached the age of 70, his answer was, "No, but thank you". I think that I am right in saying that the advertisement for Elizabeth Filkin's successor states explicitly that reappointment was possible by mutual agreement. The House and the country are left with the question of why Elizabeth Filkin was not sounded out about reappointment. We have had no answer—perhaps there is none, but the question is real.

A second feature of the code on public appointments is that people should be required to go through open competition if they have served for 10 years, or if they are on their third term. Neither condition is true of Elizabeth Filkin: she would have been seeking a second term, or the House ought to have been seeking a second term for her.

Thirdly, if people are not to continue, they should have a decent amount of notice of that fact. Had Elizabeth Filkin applied for her own job at the advertised three days a week, she would have known whether she had got the job a week ago—a week before her current term ends. That breaks the code on ministerial appointments. Although the Leader of the House might have been right to say that he believed that the code had been followed, that belief, albeit genuinely held, was wrong on the three grounds that I have outlined.

The system matters. It does not matter whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is officially responsible to the House of Commons Commission, which has not distinguished itself in that role in the past three years, or to, say, the Committee on Standards in Public Life or its Chairman. That distinction is not especially important except to the secular theologists who advise the House.

It is right to consider whether the term should be longer, and whether reappointment should be offered unless there is a reason not to offer it. The current position is illustrated by the curious circumstances of the end of Elizabeth Filkin's term. She is right that the current assumption of independence and support for impartial, fair and competent work by her office has been challenged by the events of the past six months.

The only modification that I would make to the operation of the complaints procedure—only a minor part of the work load of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—is that in normal circumstances, a person making a complaint should be asked whether they have put it directly to the Member concerned. If the answer is no, the commissioner should urge the complainant to do so. Many misunderstandings could be dealt with and problems rectified if that were a preliminary step. However, that is a step for the House to institute, not for the commissioner herself.

I remind those who listen to our debates that the commissioner does not write the rules—the House writes them.

I turn to the curious—in a proper sense—appointment of Mr. John Stonborough to advise the Commission. I have not met him, and I will not be critical, but he has 239 a reputation as an adviser on crisis management. I do not fully understand why, if it is dealing properly with the appointment or reappointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Commission, or the House itself, would need such an adviser.

It is unfortunate that the "Londoner's Diary", in the Evening Standard, carried a report apparently directly quoting Mr. Stonborough. I do not think that any direct quotation in a newspaper necessarily means that the words were said or, if they were said, that they were reported in context. He was reported to have said something about the argument being one-sided and that, in some sense, he would balance that. The debate or argument ought to be in the House.

That leads me to the Prime Minister's answer to a question from—I think—the hon. Member for Walsall, North on the reappointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Prime Minister said that it was a matter for the House. Within hours, the Leader of the House said, "Yes, and it will wait until there is a nomination from the House of Commons Commission on who the successor might be", and that it would be possible for a Member to table an amendment to such a motion, substituting the name of Elizabeth Filkin for that of, say, Philip Mawer.

For all sorts of reasons, that is not a happy or sensible way of proceeding. The Leader of the House was wrong to suggest that it was. It clearly showed that, whichever hat he was wearing at the time, he was deliberately frustrating the option for the House to debate the merits of Mrs. Filkin. In fact, of course, we are debating the merits of Philip Mawer, which are not only self-evident but have been proclaimed by Members.

I do not think that the Prime Minister has his heart in this standards business. His whiter than white and cleaner than clean remarks do not really stand up. He has not explicitly made abiding by the parliamentary code part of the ministerial code, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said.

I commend to the Prime Minister his declaring, in his own voice, that abiding by Members' responsibilities is part of being a Minister, so that any Minister from now on who does not fully co-operate with the parliamentary standards procedure, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in particular, will cease to be a Minister. The option not to do so should just go. Then, the remarks that, sadly, were made in the previous debate on the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) by a Minister would not be necessary, although Members of Parliament could still draw such matters to the attention of the House.

The Prime Minister did not require the Deputy Prime Minister to accept the invitation from the Committee on Standards and Privileges to register the union flat. Frankly, the Prime Minister should have said to the Deputy Prime Minister, "You should." We have not had any explanation from either of them as to why that registration has not occurred.

§ Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale)

What has this got to do with the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?

§ Peter Bottomley

In response to that question from a Government supporter, I was adding a few remarks on how I believe that the Prime Minister could help the system of which the commissioner is a significant part.

We then come to reports about the media and Elizabeth Filkin. The matter was first brought to my attention by somebody who asked me, "Did you see what she said at the Royal Society of Arts?" I asked, "What is she said to have said?" The Member pointed it out to me. I said, "I was at that meeting. That wasn't what she said; it wasn't the way she spoke. I was present, you weren't. What's the complaint?" I was told to look at what had been reported. Too many people seem to be sensitive about what is reported. The fact that the House of Commons Chamber is dominated at one end by a Press Gallery that is full of people who have the option to report what is said in the Chamber or spend their time listening to what people say in the Corridors seems to have passed such people by.

Commissioners—past, present and future—should be judged on what they are employed to do. I hope that, from now on, every commissioner will do what previous commissioners have done: explain their role and frankly answer questions about whether there is an inquiry into a complaint against a Member of Parliament. If the commissioner is not allowed to say yes or no to that, whispering campaigns against Members occur.

The parliamentary standards process is as good a protection to the public and to Members of Parliament alike, and it requires the commissioner to be able to give such factual answers. I have not heard the slightest whisper from a single journalist on any occasion during the past three years that Elizabeth Filkin said anything improper or out of order with regard to a current inquiry, unless it is considered improper for her to confirm that an inquiry is taking place or to say that no inquiry is taking place.

I think that Philip Mawer will do well. I think that Elizabeth Filkin did well. If he does as well as she did, or, certainly, as well as Gordon Downey did, the House will be well served.

As a tribute to Elizabeth Filkin, I quote the remarks of a director of the Britannia building society, who said that the question asked by the company about every proposal was whether it would pass the Filkin test—in other words, whether it was right. That is the question that she had to ask about what Members of Parliament were doing. Each of us, whether we came under her invigilation or not, will find that her advice has been good.

I hope that Philip Mawer's advice will be equally good and that he will have the support of the House. Elizabeth Filkin did not have that support from every quarter. It is about time that senior Members of the House, whether in government or not, gave her the support that she deserved, and they should give Philip Mawer the support that he will need.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

As I did not take part in the previous debate, may I congratulate the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee on 241 the fairness and objectivity with which he presented the case on behalf of the Committee? It is no more than any of us would have expected of him.

I join others in endorsing the nomination of Mr. Mawer. I do not know him, but what I have heard of him suggests that he has every prospect of being able to take on a job which has certain fundamental flaws within it. The first flaw was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).

In the opening speech of the afternoon, there was a comment about the rules written by the commissioner. The rules were not written by the commissioner; they were written by the House of Commons. The problem for the House of Commons and for the commissioner was that when the House of Commons approved them, it did not understand the severity and tightness of the rules that it had introduced. The commissioner therefore bore much of the blame for carrying out the new standards and rules that the House, perhaps unwittingly, had determined. She should not be blamed for that.

The rules post-Nolan were made much tighter than many people realised. Indeed, we have made recommendations for a slight loosening of the rules, which I hope will be brought before the House in the near future.

The second flaw is the system. That was the point that I made when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was kind enough to let me intervene on his speech. As I said, I do not see that there is any problem with the commissioner speaking about her job. The allegation was of leaks.

As I was saying, the second flaw is the system itself. Within the system, anyone—too many people have been playing games in the House, as we know, with tit-for-tat referrals—can refer any colleague, or any outsider can refer any Member, and tell a journalist that he has done so. If that journalist then contacts the commissioner's office to confirm that the letter has been received, the next thing that we see is a headline "Sleaze inquiry against local Member"

§ Mrs. Browning

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are occasions when a matter comes into the public domain and is commented on in the Chamber. It is then put to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to investigate. However, when Members of Parliament decide to refer a matter to the commissioner for investigation, it is incumbent on them to wait for the conclusion of that process before notifying the world at large. I have made only one such referral to the commissioner, and I abided religiously by that rule. It would have been most unfair to have made the matter public before the commissioner had had a chance to conclude it. It is inevitable that the commissioner will be asked by the press if the matter goes the other way.

§ Mr. Williams

May I embarrass the hon. Lady by saying that I am sorry she gave me that prompt, because I was going to commend the way in which she dealt with the matter? The referrals that she made were based on a misinterpretation by the press of certain circumstances, and she could have tried to get easy publicity out of the situation. The referrals were then rejected by the commissioner, who never made any public comment on them. Since receiving that rebuttal, the hon. Lady has not attempted to make any political capital out of the matter. 242 That is how it should be done. I promise her that she was already in my mind because the case happened so recently.

Many of the so-called leaks were, for no reason, attributed to the commissioner. No one has ever been able to prove that against her. The person making the allegation has only to give the press the information that he has given the commissioner, which the commissioner may have shown to the witness, and the press can run a story based on the allegation without having got any information or endorsement from the commissioner.

§ David Winnick

Has there ever been a case in which Labour, Conservative or Liberal Members have made such allegations to the commissioner without telling the press what is going on? Being politicians, that is the first thing that they are likely to do. Why should anyone be surprised about that, given the nature of this place?

§ Mr. Williams

My hon. Friend is putting the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in a most embarrassing position—her halo is positively glistening. She is genuinely one of whom I can say—

§ David Winnick

One exception.

§ Mr. Williams

She is the one who comes to mind, but there have probably been others. Indeed, there must have been, because the commissioner has often said, "I have had five or six referrals", and we have seen nothing about them in the press. Some hon. Members show integrity; others, unfortunately, cannot resist a headline and do not care what malicious damage they do to parliamentary colleagues by exploiting the situation.

§ Mrs. Browning

In the run-up to a general election, it has been the practice of some hon. Members spuriously to refer a case involving another Member to the commissioner so that they can say in their election literature that that Member is under inquiry by the commissioner, in the knowledge that there is insufficient time for the matter to be properly explored. Looking below me down the Gangway, I can see Liberal Democrat Members nodding; they know what I am talking about. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must try to ensure that that does not happen?

§ Mr. Williams

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I do not exonerate Members of any party from that practice. The tragedy is that Members who have been so self-indulgent have not recognised that they damage not only the Member against whom they make the allegation, but—cumulatively, along with others who are doing the same—the House of Commons by giving the impression that it is sleaze-ridden. In fact, most of the referrals of the past five years did not deal with what would in the past have been described as sleaze.

Whispers are a reality of the House of Commons—that is a systemic problem—and some may be malevolent or malicious. It is a function of the way in which the House works. One has to come in here every day—the Whips make sure of that.

§ Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)

Quite right, too.

§ Mr. Williams

Well, sometimes we listen to them. Day in, day out, we have to carry on working with friends— 243 or, worse, people who are not friends—who are aware that investigations are going on. It is understandable, if we are locked in here from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night and we want to get something off our chest, that we go and talk to our colleagues. A lot of the so-called whispering is what I would call self-exoneration, or trying to explain things away. Cumulatively, however—because in many cases the exoneration was not endorsed by the Committee—that also damaged the commissioner because it gave, perhaps inadvertently, the impression of unreasonableness.

My next point goes off at a tangent, in a way, but it follows on from my complimenting the Chairman of the Committee. During the fast Parliament, I stood in as Chairman when my parliamentary colleague, now Lord Sheldon, was ill. It is correct that we are now doing in this Committee what we have always done in the Public Accounts Committee. All Committees in this House have a Government majority. In Committees dealing with standards—the PAC deals with standards of financial propriety; this Committee deals with standards of behaviour—and those that deal not with Government matters but with House of Commons matters, it is important that there should be certainty in their independence.

We have always accepted that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee should be a member of the Opposition; that created a good precedent. I hope that that will be sustained by future Governments of whichever party, and that the Chair of the Standards Committee will also always be from the Opposition. That would help to get rid of the nonsensical arguments that arise when unanimous decisions are made in the Committee, yet people in the lobby write, "Government majority on Committee dragoons its members and forces them into decisions."

§ Peter Bottomley

I want to add a footnote in case any historians look at this. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was no suggestion that Robert Sheldon, who chaired the Committee during the previous Parliament, behaved any differently—although he was a Labour MP—from the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has? The right hon. Gentleman's point about the appearance of greater impartiality is a good one, however.

§ Mr. Williams

I am not impugning anyone in any way. In this Committee so much depends on perception and on people outside believing in what we do, instead of doubting what we do. I am going to say something now that will offend two of my colleagues—I had not intended to say it—but it is not meant to, because they are excellent members of the Committee. However, in this Committee more than any other, its members have to make a choice. They should either be a Parliamentary Private Secretary and not be on the Committee, or vice versa. This Committee must be as detached as possible in every way from the Executive.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) for saying that, because his legal advice has made an invaluable contribution to the Committee over the last five years, particularly in the last Parliament, when lawyers—I apologise to my hon. and 244 learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) here—did not abound in the Committee as they now do. That expertise was most welcome, and I hope that he will choose to stay on the Committee. However, I think that most hon. Members would understand if he felt that he had to keep one eye on his career prospects. Perhaps the Leader of the House could reassure him that if he made the right decision it would in no way undermine his prospects.

I have spoken for too long already, but this is my final point. As one who has worked as an acting Chairman with the present commissioner, I pay tribute to her assiduity, her determination and her meticulousness. Those qualities were a nuisance if one had something to hide; they ceased to be a nuisance if one had nothing to hide. The qualities she showed in investigating cases were of the highest standard, and I wish her well in whatever job she goes to.

§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

When I was shadow Leader of the House, I was a member of the House of Commons Commission. I do not want to discuss some of the points that have been raised today in detail; I would prefer to speak in general terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) prayed in aid his experience of employment law and good employment practice in a former life. I too have experience of a former life—my business life, in which I spent a lot of time advising organisations, especially in the corporate sector, on communication.

When, as a member of the Commission, I considered the point that we had reached with the last Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs. Filkin, I decided that the House should do something about one aspect, although it might not be unusual here. The House is not a good employer. We are not good at applying best practice in the way in which we, as MPs, would expect it to be applied in the wider business world. I think the House is now addressing that problem—the Braithwaite report, which was mentioned earlier, was an extremely useful exercise which put us on the right track—but we are not there yet.

In my short experience as a member of the Commission, I concluded that many aspects of communication—both verbal and written—had led us to the situation we are debating today. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Mawer, but it would be unacceptable if we did not learn the lessons and put them into practice pretty rapidly.

The House may recall that I questioned the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) about a proper contract of employment. I think that that is essential. I also think that the rudiments of what we would expect to find in such a contract should be accompanied by an outline, in terms, of the procedures to be followed not just when the Commissioner felt there was a need to apply for more resources, but in the event of a breakdown in communication with the Commission—either directly or through the Speaker—or when outside queries from the media and others must be handled. This is about process, not the definitive role of the commissioner in investigating individual complaints—that being part of the commissioner's remit. I believe that the last commissioner worked without that framework, which is absolutely necessary if communication is to be facilitated at all levels.

245 We have just had a little exchange about the way in which things go wrong when the commissioner speaks to the media—and yes, there have been complaints about a whispering campaign in the House about the last commissioner. There are procedures to resolve such problems immediately, if someone takes the trouble to think the process through and set it down. The problems will arise, owing to the nature of the job and the number of people with an interest—not least the media, who can be quite pernicious in their own pursuit of what the commissioner is up to. If the process for dealing with those problems is not properly structured and set out, and is not part of the employment contract and terms of reference given to the commissioner on appointment—or if there is no procedure for adding it to them—we shall inevitably find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves with Mrs. Filkin. In the end, rightly or wrongly, for a variety of reasons, the commissioner lacked trust in the House and the House lacked trust in the commissioner. As an employer, it is incumbent upon the House to resolve those matters. It is incumbent upon us as employers to ensure through the Commission that we obtain good advice, if that advice is not readily to hand, so that the new commissioner's contract and terms of reference are clearly set out.

The post of commissioner is relatively new. The way in which investigations of Members of Parliament are carried out when a complaint is made is relatively new. In one or two of the more high-profile cases in the previous Parliament, the commissioner perhaps started to investigate areas that she had not investigated before. People started to say, "Is it right that she should look at that aspect of a case and that that should command more resources?" I am not going to say in a judgmental way that it was right or it was not right. All I am saying is that that matter needs to be dealt with. As and when they arise, such issues must be resolved in a timely fashion by either the commissioner or Members of Parliament.

It is a pretty simple procedure; it is not exactly rocket science. Any large organisation in the financial sector would have such a procedure in place and would be able to solve problems as they arose. We have experienced a festering over several years of many issues, all of which deserve to be addressed. However, no one took responsibility to resolve those problems.

A breakdown in communication inevitably results when a situation evolves in that way. We end up with a situation such as we had with Mrs. Filkin. When the contract came up for renewal, it was not immediately clear to many people involved exactly what the procedure was.

§ Peter Bottomley

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for at least slightly opening the curtains—

§ Mrs. Browning

I hope that I am not.

§ Peter Bottomley

May I put it this way? If there were thought to be problems and if the commissioner and the Commission did not meet, that is a failure of communication on the part of the employer. If the Commission did not consult the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is with the commissioner virtually every week, there would seem to be a slight communication problem, so my hon. Friend is right to say that lessons can be learned.

§ Mrs. Browning

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am shutting the curtains as quickly as I can; it was not my 246 intention to open them. I am sharing an observation with the House as someone who has experienced these problems in another scenario. I could see how the situation had evolved.

One of the difficulties with problem solving is knowing and identifying the problem in the first place, rather than just living with what can become a festering sore, where everyone involved is disgruntled for a variety of reasons but no one takes responsibility for dealing with the situation and for solving problems as they arise.

A proper professional framework needs to be set out so that problems can be avoided in future. It is simply a matter of good practice in the management and employment of people, whether they be a parliamentary commissioner or anyone else for whom we are responsible. The House must raise its game and adopt 21st-century practices in managing its affairs, particularly in relation to employment contracts and the framework that is set out when people are employed, for which we or a Committee have responsibility. It is not acceptable for the situation just to go on and on. Someone must take responsibility.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that the new contract for the new commissioner is confidential. I accept that what is type-written in the contract is confidential, but I hope that it will be comprehensive and that the annexes, if not the main document—I trust that there will be annexes—will cover the proper procedures for problem resolution and for reporting back, setting out who the key people are to approach when these matters arise again, whether it be my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, or whoever. Unless that is written into the new commissioner's contract, we will go through the whole exercise again and the House will be the poorer for it. We must learn the lessons from the employment of Mrs. Filkin.

As a lay person looking in from the outside, there were times after reading the ultimate report when I did not agree with Mrs. Filkin's judgment on individual cases and other times when I did agree, but that is what happens when responsibility is devolved to someone so that they can independently take a detailed look at matters that are reported to them. That is their job. Inevitably, we are not all going to agree or disagree with the outcome of individual reports.

The Braithwaite report has been a wake-up call to the way this establishment is run. As a Parliament, we spend a lot of taxpayers' money and we are responsible for the employment of a great many people at all levels in the House. We must be as professional and as transparent in our dealings with them as we would expect them to be, and as we inevitably expect any business organisation to be outside.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

Far be it from me to bring disunity to the Chamber, where unity usually reigns on occasions such as this, but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was not quite to my taste. To be honest, I found it unctuous. It bordered on hagiography.

What we need is what we had in Elizabeth Filkin: a rough-hewn character capable of fingering the collar of dodgy people who are self-serving and all too willing to 247 kick up a fuss when the heat is on. As a one-time robust criminal barrister, I admired her style. Instead we will get a member of the great and the good, an establishment figure who will bed himself in as and when he can wind down his many other important activities. Personally, I doubt whether a sophisticated insider and dextrous mandarin who is capable of reading the tea leaves in this place is the sort of person we want.

Moreover, unless I am much mistaken, as that person is a Church Commissioner he must be a member of the Church of England, an organisation of which I was a member before I became an atheist. When I was in the choir, I was told that to be a good member of the Church of England, I had to eschew theology, shut down my moral faculties and demonstrate that the only principle to which I adhered was the lack of a principle. I was told that the Church of England was a Church where doubts very occasionally led to consensus. I am not sure that that is what we want in this case.

§ Mr. Salmond

Is atheism widespread in the Church of England these days?

§ Mr. Sedgemore

If I went down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would pull me up, but there was a well known Bishop of Durham who was pretty close to being an atheist.

As regards Elizabeth Filkin, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said. A few weeks ago, I paid a heartfelt, personal tribute to Elizabeth Filkin in an article in Tribune. I shall not go through it because I know that every hon. Member reads my articles in Tribune, but I genuinely believe that she was badly treated by Members of Parliament, and on occasions badly treated by the Committee to which she gave such devoted service and, dare I say it, by the House of Commons Commission itself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said that Elizabeth Filkin would not give any evidence, but one would have to live in a time capsule in this place not to know that there was a whispering campaign, which on most occasions developed in front of me into a shouting campaign. All I can say is that, if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough or any member of the House of Commons Commission really believes that there was not a whispering campaign, they would not do so if they had read my article in Tribune, unless they are wholly incapable of understanding the ordinary and natural meaning of simple English words.

Furthermore—I am rather loth to say this, but given some of the stuff that we have heard, I will do so—a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee once described Elizabeth Filkin to me as "mad". Some time later—I remember the day, as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it was the last time that Oxford university played Cambridge university at rugby, and the only redeeming feature of that dreadful match was that Oxford university won—I rushed back here to do my House of Commons duties and a member of that Committee told me that Elizabeth Filkin had left not only a job at the Inland Revenue but a job at the London Docklands development corporation under a cloud. When I asked for more information, I was just told that "they"— 248 the impersonal, unknown and unnamed "they"—were saying it. If that is how a member of the Committee can behave, I apologise to Elizabeth Filkin. I also apologise to her because, until I wrote my article in Tribune three weeks ago, I had not said much on the matter. I am sorry that we—and I—have let Elizabeth down.