← Back to Parliament Matters episode page

This transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript please first check against the audio version. Timestamps are provided for ease of reference.

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. Coming up in this week's episode,

Ruth Fox: Scrutinising the spies, why the Chair of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has gone public with his concerns about attempts by Whitehall to control its work.

Mark D'Arcy: The mystery of the missing ombudsman.

Ruth Fox: And parliamentary shenanigans over the Royal Albert Hall. What is going on?

Mark D'Arcy: But Ruth, let's start with the spies. In a week when Parliament discussed in incredibly guarded terms, the latest series of terror arrests, and it was made very, very clear [00:01:00] that these kind of matters can't easily be discussed in open debate on the floor of the House of Commons, all eyes turned to Parliament's intelligence and security watchdog, the ISC, the Intelligence and Security Committee. It's a rather unusual parliamentary organ because it's not directly elected by MPs. It is in fact appointed by the Prime Minister and it has very much the function of a canary in a coal mine. It can give a warning if things are going really amis.

If, for example, members started to resign from that committee, you'd know that there was real trouble in spook land and last week it didn't so much trill a warning as emit an outraged squawk in the form of a press release from its chairman, Lord Beamish, the Labour former defence minister Kevan Jones, who complained in vociferous terms that its internal workings were too much under the control of civil servants in the Cabinet Office.

We talked to him in his parliamentary office.

Lord Beamish: Well, I've been on the committee now eight years, so I was the most senior person remaining on the committee. It's a strange committee, as you say. [00:02:00] It's appointed by the Prime Minister, the nominees. There's nine members of the committee. It's not a select committee of Parliament.

It's actually a committee, which is set up by statute, the Justice and Security Act 2013. And it gives us quite wide ranging powers, including being able to monitor the activities of our security services. And that's about not just ensuring that money's being spent properly, but I think one of the agency ethics says that we give it their license to operate in terms of having the confidence that they're doing things correctly.

Mark D'Arcy: And I suppose events this week, you know, there's been this case of a big set of arrests. We don't know what's going to happen in the individual case or the rights and wrongs of the individuals there, but it was very noticeable watching Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister in the Commons Chamber being very guarded about what he felt he could say.

The prime purpose of your committee is a kind of reassurance mechanism. They may not be able to tell parliamentarians on the floor of the House of Commons and the House of Lords exactly what's going on, but they can point to a group of [00:03:00] people who are to some extent in the know, and other than think it's okay.

Lord Beamish: Yeah, I'd go further than that.

We actually, you know, ask probing questions in terms of what the security services do, and we've produced reports, some which have been very hard hitting on governments and security services in the past. Those reports have to be what they call redacted. You have to have bits of it that can't be put in the public domain for national security reasons, but it's our, I think, job to give the confidence in a democracy that our security services at least have got oversight.

Mark D'Arcy: And you've got a very considerable area to oversee. There's, you know, the two intelligence services, there's GCHQ, and as you pointed out, recently, 3 billion pounds worth of public money being spent. That's an awful lot of spying to keep an eye on.

Lord Beamish: Well, it is, but we also cover the Home Office in terms of the homeland security brief and also JIC, which is the intelligence assessment, uh, center.

So it's a wide remit, but clearly, [00:04:00] people say, well, why can't more be said in public? Well, it can't, unfortunately. Because some of the things we are doing is, not just in terms of national security, in some cases they impinge on criminal cases, and also the fact that some of the ongoing cases are, legally bound in the sense that you are waiting for justice to take its course. In terms of some of the individuals that are facing the courts.

Ruth Fox: You said Kevan, it's not a select committee, but it is the Intelligence of Security Committee of Parliament. So what is that link in relationship with Parliament? I mean, where's the staffing come from? You're appointed by the Prime Minister, not elected by the House.

What is that relationship with Parliament like then?

Lord Beamish: Well, under the Act we have to do an annual report to Parliament, which we do. And our reports are always laid before Parliament, but our staff are completely separate from Parliament and because of the nature of the material we're dealing with. They have to be obviously vetted.

And, we have our own building, for example, and our own secretariat, but our linkage is the annual report to Parliament. And also [00:05:00] our reports are laid before Parliament. They can be discussed in Parliament.

Mark D'Arcy: Do you ever find yourself talking to individual parliamentarians who come up to you and say, I'm a bit worried about this.

Do you know that it's okay?

Lord Beamish: Well, you do, but I've been that long enough and obviously I was a defence minister, so to know that you have to compartmentalize your brain in terms of remembering what you know, but also remember what you can't say publicly. I think the most frustrating thing is sometimes when you see some parliamentary colleagues in both Houses saying things you know are completely untrue, but you can't actually obviously explain the reasons why.

But clearly the work is important in terms of, as I say, making sure that the agencies have got the confidence of the public, that we've got oversight of them, which is unlike quite a few other countries.

Ruth Fox: And as regular listeners will know on the pod that we've talked a little bit about the Intelligence and Security Committee before, at the time that the committee was established and the fact that there were delays in the past over things like the publication of reports on Russia and so on.

But the reason we want to speak to [00:06:00] you today was because you put out a press release last week on local election day. So I'm not sure how much publicity you really wanted, but Mark and I spotted it and it talked about the work of the committee. It was quite a lengthy statement, but one of the headings that took our eye was oversight crisis, and you spoke in quite strong terms of concerns about the way in which government is trying to essentially restrict your ability to do the committee's job, the committee's work, by dint of things like the funding and resourcing and so on. Can you tell us a little bit more about what the problem is and why you decided to put the statement out?

Lord Beamish: Yeah. The reason the statement is because we've not published an annual report this year because we're between committees.

We've got an old committee, so this really covers some of the old committee's issues, but also it's about ensuring that we actually meet our obligations to at least say something to Parliament and public.

Ruth Fox: This is old committees because of the, the, the general election.

Lord Beamish: Well, Because the change of the general election, which is the main issue.[00:07:00]

I think there are only four members of the old committee that are actually on the new committee. But no, I mean, this has been coming for a while and the previous government, the budget was frozen. Basically we had a situation on the Boris Johnson where it took not far eight months to actually form the committee.

We had the issue around the Russia report, which was said that it couldn't be produced for the 2019 general election, which was just not true. They sat on it for a period of time and the other issue, which I think has now come to the fore, and it's something that certainly I as chair think we need to sort out, is under the structure, we are actually answerable to the Cabinet Office. Well, I don't think you can be a scrutiny body if you're actually got a body, which like the Cabinet Office, which we actually scrutinise, are actually controlling our staff, for example. So that's why we are going to come out of the Cabinet Office and have an arm's length relationship with the Government.

And I think that's been coming for a while, but now's the opportune [00:08:00] time to do it.

Mark D'Arcy: Did you get much pushback from what was a pretty vehement press release? Was there any come on, steady on old chap?

Lord Beamish: Well, no, we've gotta be honest. You know, I think we need to be honest, because we are where we are with this and it's been building for a number of years and an opportunity for a new government to actually change this.

Now certain indications are that things are going to change. But certainly in terms of the agencies themselves, we have a good working relationship with them. We are critical. And the idea that somehow this committee just rubber stamps things, from my eight years on the committee, it certainly doesn't. And I think that's the way it should be.

I think they expect robust challenge. But the frustrating thing I think for obviously journalists and others is it's all done in secret and it's not done in the glare like other select committees do.

Mark D'Arcy: You were saying that the committee needs more resources to do its job properly and that it's been calling for that for years, since 2013, and the resources aren't there.

Therefore, you can't properly [00:09:00] scrutinise the work of the security services. Has your statement actually moved things along? Have people said, okay, we'll find you some more money?

Lord Beamish: Well, things are moving. And I mean, the other thing which is quite remarkable is the committee's supposed to meet the Prime Minister once a year.

We haven't met a Prime Minister for 10 years. And the good thing about Keir Starmer, he wrote to me just after I was appointed as the chair to say that we wants a meeting, which we're going to get in the diary, and we have actually had some movement on resources and we're going to have a meeting week after next in terms of what the new structure will look like.

So I think this is going to be a positive, I think not just only for the committee, but also I think for government as well, to ensure that the committee is seen as independent and has the resources and capabilities to do its job.

Mark D'Arcy: Are you disappointed that it took quite a lot of banging on the table to get that movement?

Lord Beamish: Well, yeah. I mean, this should have been resolved in the last Parliament, but it's quite clear the last government of both, I think, Boris Johnson was very hostile to the committee, [00:10:00] didn't like the chair at the time because he tried to impose a chair on the committee and clearly hadn't read the rules that it was up to the committee to appoint the chair.

And we had an excellent chair in Sir Julian Lewis. So I think this is a time for reset.

Ruth Fox: And you said that the plan is for the committee to have an arms length relationship, to move out of the Cabinet Office. So what is The thought about where you're actually going to be positioned in relation to government?

Lord Beamish: Well, our ideal idea would be a bit like the National Audit Office, where we will dock into parliament things for things like payroll and other things because we would duplicate that for quite a small organisation, but we will then be a standalone body, which will be able to determine its own remit, obviously with an increased budget.

Ruth Fox: And the mood music from government is positive on that as the direction of travel or are they resisting?

Lord Beamish: No, no, I think, I understand that they we're just about to get it clarified this week. We understand the increase in budget has been already agreed, signed off ministerial. The issue now is to work out what the legal structure [00:11:00] is of the new organisation

But no, I think there is clearly support in government for that to happen. And I think it will benefit the scrutiny, the independence of the committee. And also make sure that we have the effectiveness, which the Justice and Security Act says we should have in terms of scrutinising our security services.

Ruth Fox: And is all of this going to need legislative changes? Because as you said, you're set up under statute, so if you're starting to change the governance structures and the arrangements in terms of that relationship with government itself, do you need a new statutory authority?

Lord Beamish: That's the discussion that's taking place at a meeting this morning where I think we can have a interim position before we move.

Possibly we do need a standing order change or some legislation, but I think we can do it without that. In the short term, but I think this is a positive move for the committee.

Mark D'Arcy: You mentioned that you hadn't managed to have a Prime Minister give evidence to your committee for a very long turnout. Was it Theresa May or David Cameron was the last one?

Lord Beamish: I think it was David Cameron was the last one.

Mark D'Arcy: Uh, what are the prospects of Keir Starmer coming before you? You said you'd had [00:12:00] a friendly letter from him about your work. Is he going to be giving evidence in the near future, do you think?

Lord Beamish: He's quite keen to. I spoke to his office last week. It's just a matter of trying to get the date in the diary and, you know, we asked us to meet once a year and it's important, I think, for the committee to be able to meet and talk direct to the Prime Minister about some of these issues.

Mark D'Arcy: What's the agenda for the committee now? If you're able to talk about it in any great detail, but what's the agenda for the committee? What subjects are you going to be pursuing that perhaps previous committees haven't had a chance to look at?

Lord Beamish: Well, the problem we've got at the moment is we've got a new committee, so we're going through the inductions, uh, for various new members to our visits, to the organisations and get to know the actual areas that are covered by the committee. That's going to take up till the summer. We've got a report on Iran that we are hopefully trying to get out before the summer. That's a carryover from the last committee. And that should be our last major report that will be produced this year. And then what will happen in the autumn is the committee will then meet to decide what the forward program is.

So really it's the autumn [00:13:00] when we will actually be deciding that.

Mark D'Arcy: We are in a House of Commons now that's 50% plus new MPs who will never have had a chance to debate one of your committee's reports. So I suppose it's going to be quite a test really for them and maybe even for you when they start debating your reports in due course.

How much attention do you think you're going to get?

Lord Beamish: Well, I think that's a challenge. Actually one I've been thinking about already with Jeremy Wright, who's the deputy chair, and one of the things that I think we're going to perhaps look at doing later in the year is actually a presentation to parliamentarians to actually just bring up to speed of where we're at. Because most of the new MPs will not really have a clue what the committee actually does.

Mark D'Arcy: And what its limitations are and what it can do and what it can't say.

Lord Beamish: Well, yeah, I mean, there's a lot we can't say in public, but we have quite large powers. We, you know, we can ask for information and we can't be refused information, which is I think unlike a select committee.

Mark D'Arcy: And do you think your existence reassures other parliamentarians that all is as it should be, or at least if it isn't as [00:14:00] it should be, you're on the case.

Lord Beamish: Well, I think it should. Because if you look for example, a couple reports we did, one was on rendition and detention, that was what, 2017, which is a major report about what happened around Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans, on rendition. That led to direct changes in the way in which our security services operate in terms of the new consolidated guidance around how officers can operate. We had the Russia report, which recommended the FIRS scheme, the Foreign Agents Registration Scheme, that's now enacted. The National Security Act was another one which we were involved with as well. So yeah, our reports do actually have an impact in terms of making things better, I think.

Ruth Fox: You talked a little bit about the reports that are on your immediate horizon that you've got in train and you need to get through, but over the course of this parliament and looking ahead at the geopolitical situation and deteriorating relations between countries and increase in, in spying, espionage in other places around the world, but particularly here in the UK, I mean, what do you think are the priorities in the new areas that you might have to look at?[00:15:00]

Lord Beamish: Well, I think the ongoing issue, I think is the upspike, which there is quite clearly, in state threats to the uk, which will be outlined in our Iran report, which again, is concerning. But you can go all the way through to a report we did a couple of years ago, which was on right wing extreme terrorism, which is again a growing threat.

We do liaise with our international partners. We're meeting our American counterparts in June, for example,

Mark D'Arcy: This is what, the Congressional committee that looks after the American Intelligence Services.

Lord Beamish: Yeah. So it's always useful, I think, I've always found, to talk to those individuals, to get the perspective from their point of view.

But yeah, it is a very dangerous world at the moment and a very changing world, which I think makes the relevance of the committee even more important.

Mark D'Arcy: Kevan Jones, Lord Beamish, thanks very much indeed for joining Ruth and me on the pod today.

Lord Beamish: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

Ruth Fox: Well, Mark, I think that's probably a good moment to take a break and, listeners, when we come back, we'll be channeling our inner Sherlock Holmes and investigating The Mystery of the Missing Ombudsman.

[00:16:00] So, we'll see you in a few minutes

Mark D'Arcy: And we are back and we delighted to welcome onto the pod a veteran Westminster watcher, the journalist David Hencke to, I hope, explain one of the mysteries that perhaps is puzzling at least a select few people in Westminster at the moment. What on earth is happening with the parliamentary ombudsman?

We don't have one at the moment, and the ombudsman is supposed to be the person who chases maladministration, bad decisions that have bad effects on people taken by government agencies. It may be one person, it may be a large group of people. And we haven't had an ombudsman for a year. There's been someone standing in.

So David, first of all, before we get into the gory details of all that, talk us through what the Ombudsman's actual function is.

David Hencke: Well, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was set up I think in the 1960s under the Harold Wilson government, and basically he or she was there to take up cases [00:17:00] that have been brought to members of Parliament by the public.

80% of his work is connected with the National Health Service and involves cases of both maladministration and appalling treatment in hospitals and mental health institutions. The remaining 20% covers a wide range of issues where people have basically tried to get something done and they've gone to their MP, their MP can't really investigate it, so he calls in the parliamentary ombudsman.

The problem with the present ombudsman who will be taking up a job within the next few weeks is that the legislation that's introduced is ridiculously out of date. For example, the fact that we have something called the MP filter, that no one can go directly the parliamentary ombudsman and ask the case up.

They have to [00:18:00] go to their MP, who then has to go to the ombudsman to take it up

Mark D'Arcy: Or refuse to presumably.

David Hencke: Or refuse. In fact, in a number of more cases than not, it seems to be refused or they decided not to do it. Other ombudsman that are more modern in the world, you can go directly to them. He also has very, or she, has very weak powers, unlike other ombudsman who can say, this is my decision. The body will have to take action to compensate people over the bad decisions that are being made. He can only recommend decisions and the government can totally ignore it if they want to, and so can actually some of the health service as well.

Mark D'Arcy: And the big example of this is the case of the WASPI women, women who lost out in the payment of their state pension. Previous ombudsman have recommended that they should receive compensation. And the government, successive governments indeed, have refused to cough up. [00:19:00]

David Hencke: This is correct, and this is one of the biggest cases.

I mean, believe it or not, the last ombudsman spent about five or six years investigating this case, and frankly, it was a bit of a cop out his decision because basically he said it was up to Parliament and then he laid down guidelines of, what compensation, which was up to 2,950 pounds for maladministration and only partial maladministration.

He didn't accept all the maladministration and also it was outside his remit to look at another size, which was whether there'd been discrimination in the past against those women, which meant they couldn't get proper pensions anyway, because the laws have changed and women have got far more rights now than they did for women born in the 1950s.

Ruth Fox: You mentioned other ombudsman and you said that the powers of the parliamentary ombudsman are weak. [00:20:00] They can't compel a government to pay out compensation, for example, as in the case of WASPI women. But in a sense, if they were to make recommendations for massive compensation as in the WASPI case, I mean, you're compelling a government then to take on a huge burden financially.

Billions on the back, yeah, on the back of the decisions and say so of one person, the ombudsman, and his or her office. Do other ombudsman have stronger powers? And what kind of ombudsman are we talking about? I mean, I'm thinking financial services ombudsman and others. I mean, do they have stronger powers?

David Hencke: No. I was thinking actually in other countries who've created ombudsman. There is an international ombudsman organisation

Ruth Fox: Because the concept of the ombudsman back in the 1960s, it emerged out of Scandinavia, didn't it? Sweden had had one since the 19th century, for example.

David Hencke: Mm-hmm. Yes. And we are still behind. And there is a, it's really bad. The last ombudsman and the committee that's dealt with the appointment of the new one, both wanted a [00:21:00] new law. First of all, getting rid of this filter with MPs, which doesn't exist in many other countries now, and also giving him the powers that if he took a decision, they would have to follow it up.

But Michael Gove, who was in the cabinet office at the time, vetoed even a draft bill to be discussed in Parliament, let alone producing legislation, and wouldn't do anything about it. And so far, and it wasn't in the Labour manifesto, this bit, there doesn't seem to be any sign of the new Labour government doing anything about it.

Ruth Fox: Just going back to that MP filter, I mean, it comes out of those debates back in the 1960s, there were quite a number of MPs who weren't happy with the idea of creating an ombudsman because they thought it would undermine ministerial accountability to Parliament and it would also undermine the role of MPs in their constituencies as, if you like, the grievance chasers. So the filter was put in at the time that the 1967 Parliamentary Commissioner Act, which created the ombudsman [00:22:00] role, was actually put in, to address that concern. And it's still there now, and some people suggest, you know, I mean, in my society, for example, the NGO that does a lot of the data crunching around Westminster, it's suggested that the MP filter is now a driver for the size of MP's constituency postbag, as you said, the constituent can go to the MP to press the case. They can't get direct to the ombudsman. They have to get the agreement of the MP. The MP invariably does sign the paperwork and pass it on and leave it to the ombudsman to decide whether or not there's been maladministration. My understanding is they can't go to the ombudsman unless they've exhausted all other avenues.

David Hencke: Yes, I think that's true. They have to have actually complained to the organisation or to the hospital. Say where they believe they've been badly treated. If they don't do that, they can't then take it up with the MP.

Mark D'Arcy: So let's trace what's been happening with the Office of Ombudsman. Rob Behrens, the previous incumbent left some time ago. There was a new [00:23:00] nominee for the post, nick Hardwick who didn't quite get over the finishing line somehow or other, although he was lined up for the appointment, didn't get there. What was happening there.

Ruth Fox: He was blackballed for some reason.

David Hencke: Yes, he was. And this is another example of the antiquated legislation of the Ombudsman, because what happened was they had a proper process where actually they had lots of candidates and he was chosen by an independent board set up to scrutinise the people who were applying. They recommended he should be the new ombudsman. It then had to go to the then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. And there was silence. He neither approved or disapproved, but he had to approve under the legislation, the new ombudsman, and he didn't.

Mark D'Arcy: So he didn't forward a recommendation to the King, basically?

David Hencke: No. And [00:24:00] not only that, they pressed him from the committee. I think William Wragg, to know what on earth was going, who was chairman what was then Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Committee. Yeah. And nothing happened. Was just complete silence. And actually this caused a panic on the Board of the Ombudsman, which has got a board where Sir Alex Allen, who was a very high flying civil servant, and once the Prime Minister's, ethical advisor wrote a letter saying, we can't leave it like this, because we won't have anybody in as the Ombudsman at all. And he recommended that the chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, should be appointed an interim ombudsman.

And again, under the legislation it said she could only hold that post for a year and it had to end at the end of March. So what happens is she [00:25:00] gets approved for a year, then everyone is expecting is she going to be made permanent or what's going on? There's a silence and nothing becomes clear literally until a couple of weeks ago that there is a new ombudsman that they looked at. But this comes after she's had to stand down by law and can't continue.

Mark D'Arcy: So there's a kind of moment where we are ombudsman less.

David Hencke: Absolutely. And you can tell on the website because of the last decision is the end of March and then there's a silence and I don't know what the press office are doing.

There has never been a press release for the whole period, or a normal decision, because they publish at least the number of decisions and there's zilch decisions taken.

Ruth Fox: So whilst the work of the Ombudsman's office may be going on doing the investigation of cases, no decisions can be made and signed off because only the ombudsman can do that.

David Hencke: That's correct. And then that's what has happened. And in [00:26:00] fact, they did the last press release, said, oh, we will be contacting some of the complainants to explain why they can't have a decision at the moment, which is extraordinary actually.

Mark D'Arcy: And the potential end to this limbo comes with a meeting of the parliamentary committee that kind of works with the Ombudsman. It's now the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, used to be the Public Administration Committee, and they had a pre-appointment hearing with a person whose name remained shrouded in secrecy.

David Hencke: That's correct. They actually put on the order paper, the pre-appointment of a new ombudsman without the name of anybody, and I found out, actually from people on the committee, that what happened was she, Paula Sussex, who was the chief executive of an ID company that worked with banks and other things for providing a simple ID system, she requested it be kept [00:27:00] secret. The committee kept it secret until the day before the hearing when they suddenly published her name.

And it turned out there had been a full interview process, which included the chairman, the one longstanding MP left on the committee, Simon Hoare. And that, basically she had been chosen from a large number of applicants, of which nearly half were women, to get the job, which was worth up to, I think, 189,000 a year.

Actually quite a big salary.

Ruth Fox: That select committee hearing. I mean, my sense David looking at it was it was a bit underwhelming. I mean, only half the committee were present. It was quorate, but only, just, only just, it was six members present, as you say, the normal chair of the committee, Simon Hoare, the Conservative wasn't present because he'd been part of the appointment process, so he had to recuse himself.

But there were five Labour members, one liberal Democrat. The other Conservative on the committee in addition to Simon wasn't present. They were [00:28:00] all pretty much new members,

Mark D'Arcy: Including the chair Lauren Edwards, who was one of the July 24 intake.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. And it didn't seem to me to get into the detail of the job and the skill that needed. The questioning was a bit underwhelming and she wasn't put under much pressure. And given that she's come from a private sector background, she's had a period as chief executive of the Charity Commission, where there were some criticisms of how she'd handled the role, particularly in its public facing nature and her experience of the regulation.

She wasn't really put under an awful lot of pressure, and particularly in the context of the Ombudsman's role. There's not only just been this, sort of problems with the appointment process and this hiatus over a 12 month period, but the Ombudsmans had quite a lot of history with the committee of some criticism for the way it's handled its workload and managed its approach to its work.

There's been quite a lot of criticism over it in recent years.

David Hencke: Yes they have. And you are absolutely right. I watched that hearing and I was [00:29:00] underwhelmed by both her and the MPs. I later found out that most of the questions they asked have been drafted for them by the clerk of the committee.

Because they were all new MPs.

Ruth Fox: Well, that, to be fair, that's not unusual. Right. Even for select committees with quite established members that that, that can be quite a regular thing.

Mark D'Arcy: Was there a sense that maybe the MPs weren't all that clear what the Ombudsman actually did?

David Hencke: I think that was true. And also they didn't probe very far.

I mean, it seemed to me that she didn't know a lot about the National Health Service, which is a massive part of her job. Said she had friends there and one wondered, well, what friends. Are they all trust executives. Started to shut up.

Mark D'Arcy: And that's 80% of her casework.

David Hencke: Yeah, exactly. And she obviously didn't know a lot about that.

And also her previous role in the Charity Commission. You are quite right to say there was an actual article in a third sector magazine that said actually she didn't like interviews with journalists. Well, I [00:30:00] mean, one part of her job is she has to use the media to do that. And also she didn't show much interest in policy.

She was more interested in process and how to change things and so on. And I'm wondering what she's going to be like as a new Ombudsman and I almost got the feeling that she wasn't passionately enthusiastic about this job yet. She had applied for it. So it was a really bad experience and also showed actually that the new intake are going to have to bed themselves in. Get some advice on how they're going to question people in future because basically they then issued statements saying that she was the most wonderful, suitable person for the job when it didn't look like it during the hearing.

Ruth Fox: I mean, her sort of approach to systems management and process improvement is clearly something that the Office of the Ombudsman could do with some input on, but as you say, the role is much broader than that. It has a big policy [00:31:00] aspect, big regulatory aspect, and it's got to deal with the big picture politics of some of these, mm-hmm, challenging issues like it's found with WASPI women. She might find herself in the heat of the argument on some of these issues and you know, it's quite challenging role.

David Hencke: Yes, it is. It's a very challenging role. And it may, well, you may be right. I mean, it may need, I mean, staff have been fairly on, there's even been a strike at the Ombudsman's office because they, uh, were fed up with all the way it was being run, which does suggest to me that, that they may be improvements.

You may be able to introduce so they're more efficient and things like that.

Mark D'Arcy: It sounds like there's a job of work to do here, both because of the problems you just talked about, but also because of this long hiatus there's been between ombudsman and there's a bit of credibility rebuilding to do and possibly moves to strengthen the whole system are also needed, in which the ombudsman inevitably is going to have to have an opinion.

David Hencke: Absolutely, and certainly didn't get any [00:32:00] ideas that she had any opinions on this. I mean, apart from she obviously thought a lot about processes and how things could be improved and it is going to be a big role because I think there will be further pressure for the Ombudsman powers to be strengthened, and that will require legislation. She's certainly going to have to have a role in that. I mean, to be fair to the previous ombudsman, he made it very clear that he felt handicapped by an ancient law that didn't allow him the powers he wanted, and also that the MP's filter was not the best thing, and I might add, the new MPs, one member of the committee was there, did a straw poll in the tea room in the Commons, and said, what about the parliamentary ombudsman? And they had blank faces. They didn't even know what the parliamentary ombudsman was or what he did, which is a bit alarming because they're going to soon find out from their constituents they're going to have to take [00:33:00] things up.

Mark D'Arcy: Actually, what bad things happen if this system doesn't work very well? What's the bottom line here of the effects on the public?

David Hencke: That you get a lot of disgruntled people, and I've noticed it on social media and people have approached me on my blog where they've been unhappy about how far the ombudsman went in taking up their complaints and so on.

Ruth Fox: It's worth saying in some of these cases, I mean, having worked for an MP and sat in constituency advice surgeries, but having dealt with ombudsman cases where, you know, the constituent comes to you at the end of their tether, very, very frustrated, often angry. And I remember one case where a gentleman came and it was to do with a council decision and then a sort of government department involvement, hence why it was a ombudsman case.

And he literally emptied two supermarket carrier bags of paperwork over our desk. And we were expected to somehow work our way through this paper trail and figure out what [00:34:00] the problems were. So often these cases are incredibly complicated and take quite a lot of time to unravel and therefore that's why sort of things like the resourcing of the Ombudsman's office come in.

But yeah, it is that sense of real disgruntlement. What is your sense of, why successive governments haven't wanted to legislate to reform the role and the office. Because as you said, back in 2019, the public administration committee was pressing for legislative changes. This role has been in place since 1967.

I can kind of understand why a government wouldn't want to sign a blank check and say, yeah, whatever you recommend, we will implement. But there are other changes short of that that could be done.

David Hencke: Yes. Well, I get the impression that the government realise they'll lose a lot of power if the ombudsman can actually, for instance, make a decision, like in the case of the WASPI women, that would, as you rightly said, cost the government a lot of money. But the feeling there seems to be [00:35:00] no appetite for that. And they seem to want to leave the system as it is, presumably. Because there's a filter and it's more complicated for a member of the public. They have to exhaust so many processes. No wonder you had a pile of paper.

It was probably all series of things. Horrendous. And I think they think, oh, what? Why should we give up our power under the present system, and they have actually treated the members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee very badly because actually they made it really clear, particularly under predecessor William Wragg, that they wanted changes and that it wasn't good enough for the systems and the ombudsman himself, then also said that it'd be very interesting to see what she says. Because she said nothing other than

Ruth Fox: And wasn't pressed on that question.

David Hencke: No, I mean she was pressed a little about the WASPI women and because, so one [00:36:00] MP asked whether this would set a precedent that future governments would decide they could totally ignore anything because they can cite the WASPI women example.

And she seemed to think, no, that wouldn't really be, government wouldn't normally do that. And I thought that was a bit complacent because this is really, restricting the power and effectiveness of an ombudsman to do his or her job.

Mark D'Arcy: Well, we'll have to watch and see how the system works with its new head.

David Hencke, thanks very much indeed for joining Ruth and I on the pod today.

David Hencke: Thank you very much and pleasure actually, and nice for you to invite me.

Ruth Fox: Thanks David.

Mark D'Arcy: And with that, let's take a break.

Ruth Fox: Yes. But before that, can I just ask listeners a favor? My regular weekly request, can you fill out our listener survey, which you'll find at the top of the show notes, in whatever podcast app you're using.

If you could complete that survey for us, that'd be incredibly helpful to us to give us some insights into who is actually listening to Parliament Matters, what you like, what you don't like, and how we can grow the podcast audience [00:37:00] in the future. That'd be really useful to fill that out. Again, the link is in the top of your podcast show notes in whatever app you are using. And, Mark, with that we'll be back to answer some listeners questions, particularly about the Royal Albert Hall and the role of the deputy speakers.

Mark D'Arcy: See you soon.

Ruth Fox: And we're back. And, uh, Mark, we've had some listeners questions in, so, uh, fire away. What have we got?

Mark D'Arcy: Well, let's start with one that took a little bit of research actually to get into. Anonymous asked, on Tuesday, the 29th of April, Sir Christopher Chope objected to the second reading of the Royal Albert Hall Bill. When was the last time an MP opposed a private bill? And how likely is this to derail the bill's passage?

A motion has since appeared on the private business paper in his name on second reading of the Albert Hall Bill to move that the bill be read a second time on this day six months. If passed, would this kill the bill in this session, as Erskine May appears to suggest? [00:38:00]

Ruth Fox: Well, as you said, Mark, it's taken a bit of unpicking this one.

So we've called in the cavalry and

Mark D'Arcy: The heavy mob.

Ruth Fox: The heavy mob. So listeners, we are joined by our researcher here at the Hansard Society, Matthew England, who's been on the pod before, but, welcome back Matthew. Help us answer these questions.

Matthew England: I'll try.

Ruth Fox: Let's start off, let's start from pick this, so this Royal Albert Hall Bill is a private bill.

It's not a government bill. So what does that mean? What is a private bill?

Matthew England: Yeah, a private bill is a bill that affects only specific individuals and organisations rather than people in general. So it imposes obligations, or it makes arrangements, that relate to a specific individual or organization, such as the Royal Albert Hall, as this one does.

So if the bill instead made provision with respect to concert halls in general, it would be a public bill, but because it applies only in relation to the Royal Albert Hall, it's a private bill.

Ruth Fox: So the bill has been brought forward by the Royal Albert Hall itself, and it's about changing its governance [00:39:00] arrangements, which we'll perhaps come on to, but Sir Christopher Chope has basically objected to the second reading of this when it was on the order paper in the House of Commons on the 29th of April.

Why? What was he trying to achieve?

Matthew England: It's difficult to say, but we suspect that his reasoning is that he's trying to force a debate on the bill.

Ruth Fox: Why wouldn't it be debated?

Matthew England: So private bills go through a special procedure in the House of Commons. There's a time period just before oral questions in the Commons, so the very first item of business in the day, where private bills can go through, they can complete a stage without a debate, so long as they're unopposed. If any member objects, the bill can't go through.

Mark D'Arcy: And so Christopher Chope has probably shouted the word object more than any other single MP one suspects. It's his hobby.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. It's presumably a bit like the approach he takes to private members' bills, when he shouts object. Because he wants bills to be properly scrutinised. So it was on the order paper at the start of business, immediately after prayers, before oral questions, he stands and shouts object.

And [00:40:00] then we end up with another development, that he puts down a motion on the business papers that on second reading of the Royal Albert Hall, the bill be read a second time on this day six months. Now this is a blocking motion. So what's that about?

Matthew England: So the caveat that private bills can't proceed in the time for private business at the start of the day if they are opposed applies in two different ways.

So the first time that a stage is put before the house, in this case, second reading, the way that members signal their opposition to a bill is simply by shouting object. Once a private bill stage has been deferred, members can then table a special kind of motion called a blocking motion. The purpose of that is to give an advance notice of their intention to oppose the bill.

The form in which that motion typically comes for private bills is that the bill be read a second time this day six months. It would kick it into the long grass. But if the [00:41:00] six month motion were voted on, it would effectively kill the bill. It won't be voted on, because in practical terms, the effect of tabling a blocking motion is to force the deputy speaker, who is responsible for the bill in the House of Commons, to name another day for second reading in the future.

Ruth Fox: And that's quite interesting, isn't it? Because you say the deputy speaker is responsible for the bill, which normally a deputy speaker is not responsible for a bill, but they are for these. Why?

Matthew England: Because the promoter of the bill in this case is the Royal Albert Hall itself rather than the government. This isn't a government bill, so this role of naming days for stages of the bill would normally fall to a government whip sitting next to the speaker. But because the government's not responsible for a private bill, the job instead falls to the chairman of ways and means, who is the most senior deputy speaker.

Ruth Fox: And that's Nusrat Ghani?

Matthew England: Yes.

Ruth Fox: And if you watched this week after the House resumed after the bank holiday, first item of business on Tuesday, again, this bill was back on the order paper just before oral [00:42:00] questions. And Sir Christopher Chope did not have to shout object because he'd given this advance notice of his objections through the motion, but Nusrat Ghani then had to step in and respond.

Matthew England: Yes. You're quite right that the only practical difference that the tabling of this motion makes relative to just simply shouting object is that as soon as the bill is read out, the clerk reads out the title of the bill, the Speaker stands up and asks the Chairman of Ways and Means, in this case Nusrat Ghani, to name a future day for second reading, because under the Standing Orders, it can't proceed at that moment. And this week she named, a date seven days in the future. So next Tuesday.

Mark D'Arcy: And we'll see whether Sir Christopher Chope does it all again.

Ruth Fox: Yes, so we'll be back to square one. But essentially at some point, in order to resolve this, the Government is either going to have to provide time for a debate or Nusrat Ghani is going to have to basically request a time, insist on time. So that it can be resolved.

Matthew England: Yeah. In theory, this process of Christopher Chope objecting to the bill proceeding and then Nusrat Ghani naming a future day for Second Reading can proceed indefinitely. [00:43:00]

Ruth Fox: Let's hope not.

Matthew England: It'll be a weekly enterprise by both of them. Maybe they'll have tea after.

Mark D'Arcy: Maybe one day one of 'em will miss their train or something.

Matthew England: But, you're right that there are two ways that this can effectively be resolved.

One is for the government to provide time, for the debate to take place. And we'll see in that instance whether Christopher Chope has any substantive objections to the bill rather than simply that it's going through without a debate. Or there's a special procedure that enables the chairman of ways and means to force a debate potentially in government time, which is quite a rare and quite a strong power on the face of it. And that debate can be up to three hours long.

Ruth Fox: And our listener did ask the question, when was the last time an MP opposed a private bill? Do we know when?

Matthew England: We do. So the last time that an MP opposed the passage of any stage of a private bill was back in October, 2018.

You get one guess as to which MP was responsible for that one.

Mark D'Arcy: Sir Christopher Chope, come on down.

Matthew England: And that was for consideration of Lords [00:44:00] Amendments on the Middle Level Bill, which was another private bill.

Ruth Fox: The Middle Level being?

Matthew England: The Middle Level is a series of waterways in Cambridgeshire.

And the bill was needed to make some changes to the powers of the Middle Level commissioners who are basically the navigation authority for the Middle Level.

Ruth Fox: Right. Well, we will see what happens with this. This potentially can run on and on for a while, but essentially the Royal Albert Hall needs this bill.

I mean, it was held over from the last Parliament, because it, it fell, I think, at the general election. So it has to be reintroduced. So they've been waiting a while to sort out their governance arrangements. It's going to take a little bit longer and we'll see what Christopher Chope does next. But, we've had another very techie question.

Another one from our listeners.

Mark D'Arcy: Yes. This is from Gabriel. We touched on it again in last week's pod actually. But again, we weren't totally sure of the answer. So we are revisiting it now. Under the standing orders, at least one man and at least one woman shall be elected across the four posts of speaker and deputy speakers. Relating to the debate on the podcast as to who would Sir Lindsay Hoyle's [00:45:00] successor, Gabriel asks, considering that the three current deputy speakers are all women, isn't it the case that only a man can be elected as speaker, unless one of the deputy speakers resign before the election of a new Speaker.

Ruth Fox: Well, this, again, is a little techy, so we've had to consult the standing orders.

So this is rooted in standing order 2A, part (5), subsection (e).

Mark D'Arcy: Listeners, get out your copies of Erskine May, now. There'll be a short quiz at the end.

Matthew England: And that it's part (iii) of that subsection as well.

Ruth Fox: It is. Yeah, so essentially the election of the deputy speakers is conducted by a single transferrable vote ballot, and there are a number of criteria though that apply.

So, two candidates have got to come from the opposite side of the House to which the Speaker is drawn, and that's just to provide the party balance. And one candidate shall come from the same side of the house. And then there's a sort of prioritization of which party gets which of the three senior deputy speakers according to

Mark D'Arcy: How many votes they get, [00:46:00] essentially.

Ruth Fox: Well, yes, but also that if the Speaker is from, in this case, the Labour Party, then you've got to have a Conservative who's the senior deputy speaker, Chairman of Ways and means and so on. And then the other criteria is that at least one man and at least one woman should be elected across the four posts of speaker and deputy speaker.

So this does raise the question, if you've got one man, as we have, and three women as deputies, what happens if the Speaker stands down mid Parliament? He may or may not, but you know, he'll have been in office for a number of years. As we speculated, on the previous pod, he stands down, does that mean he has to be automatically replaced by a man, in order to meet that gender balance, and I think having looked at this, my conclusion is no. Because, he will stand down, one or more of the deputy speakers may stand anyway, so it may sort of resolve itself. But the whole approach to the election of the deputy speakers, if you go back to when this was first looked at in 2009 by the Procedure Committee, was that they were electing [00:47:00] the deputy speakers at the start of a parliament, and that Procedure Committee looked at circumstances of what might happen, change, mid parliament and concluded that if you had to have a situation where either party balance or gender balance was not quite right in accordance with these standing orders as a result of a mid parliament change, that should still stand and it would be resolved at the election of the deputy speakers at the start of the next parliament.

And this has never been tested, so we can't be a hundred percent sure, but my reading of the principles that underpinned the approach to the election of the deputy speakers is that actually you wouldn't pay attention to that standing order. You'd have your vote because it would be mad, frankly, to say that you can only have a male speaker because you wanted gender balance, and you happened to have ended up with three female deputy speakers at the previous election.

Mark D'Arcy: I can see, again, Parliament could twist itself into knots over this, but if they genuinely thought there was going to be a problem, I think there would be a quick emergency standing order whiz [00:48:00] through.

Yeah. So not withstanding all that dirty dah duh. And if you ended up with an all female speakership team for a while, well centuries of all male speakership teams, and I'm sure sure the sky wouldn't fall.

Matthew England: I think the wording of the standing order rather supports that interpretation as well. I mean, the requirement that there has to be a man and a woman across the four posts of speaker and three deputy speakers is contained, as you say, within standing order 2A, and specifically it's listed as a constraint on the way in which the ballots for the election of deputy speaker should be counted.

It's not explicitly said that this applies to the election of the speaker. It's simply a constraint on the counting of ballots for deputy speaker. The deputy speaker ballots have to be counted under the single transferrable vote, except insofar as these requirements must first be satisfied.

Ruth Fox: I'll get my cocktail out now.

Mark D'Arcy: Now, I've warned you all, there's going to be a short quiz at the end of the program and all this, so I hope you're paying attention. Um, we've got a final question here from Matt. Hello, he says, [00:49:00] I have a techie question relating to the remaining stages of the assisted dying bill. Could further consideration be given to the bill on a day or days where government business finishes early. Standing order 14(1) stipulates that government business shall have precedence at every sitting. But does this mean that only government business may be tabled or just that government business is guaranteed priority in the running order, but private members are theoretically able to table their own business, given the preponderance of general debates and Parliament regularly wrapping up early for lack of enough government business to get a full day's play.

If this is possible, it would seem a pragmatic way to ensure the bill gets sufficient scrutiny without the risk of it being timed out. So as you say, if there's over spill in the time needed to get the assisted dying legislation through the Commons, could they just use some of the sort of unused time at the end of the day, if a day's business winds up early, is essentially the question.

Ruth.

Ruth Fox: In theory, it sounds like a good idea because the use of parliamentary time, it's precious and a lot of it does feel sometimes [00:50:00] wasted when government business collapses or there's just not that much interest in debate and they finish early and you sort of think, well, there is other things that MPs keep going, for example, to about bench business committee or private members bills that they want to debate.

And there isn't the time, so why could we not use that time better? But then you start to think about the practicalities of essentially having a substitutes bench. Yeah. Substitutes bench where you've got MPs on standby to come into the chamber to debate something if there's enough time at the end of the day.

Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, and you can see this is where it gets into difficulties. I mean, suppose that the minister responsible for answering for the government on the bill was on a visit somewhere outside Westminster and couldn't get back in time. You can't just blow a whistle and everybody suddenly appears. Kim Leadbeater has to be there, for example, as the mover of the bill.

Yeah. The main opponents, all those chess pieces have to be in place. Otherwise, apart from anything else, it's all a bit unfair. You know, I can't imagine the explosion that would result if they whiz through a large chunk of the [00:51:00] debate on the assisted dying legislation and, whoops, Danny Kruger was in a vital engagement in his constituency in Devizes.

Mm. And that really would be a recipe for someone crying foul.

Ruth Fox: Hmm. There is an argument though for having a look at the use of the parliamentary timetable and thinking perhaps about it differently. So I said, I think, on the podcast before that, I think increasingly I'd get rid of sitting Fridays and have private members bills dealt with on Tuesdays or Wednesday evenings and change what business is dealt with when, so that you could address some of these issues.

That might mean slightly longer sitting days on certain parts of the week, but there are different ways we could tackle the use of time.

Mark D'Arcy: But I think it is very difficult to ask a group of MPs to prepare for a debate that might never happen. Absolutely. Apart from anything else, there's a lot of effort.

You know, you get your speech written and you're sitting there and, oh, sorry, this debate's going on longer than we thought it was going to go on. Yeah. And, uh, sorry guys.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, so I think it's a nice idea in theory, but I think in practice it's probably [00:52:00] unworkable.

Mark D'Arcy: Well, that gives us an opportunity just to remind listeners, first of all, be sure to listen to our special podcast on the assisted dying bill.

This week we're talking to the Bill's promoter, Kim Leadbeater, about where she thinks the bill now is, about the changes that have been made at the committee stage, about the prospects for report stage. And it's well worth a listen, because we go through quite a lot of the very techie issues around getting that bill through.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. And also just to alert listeners to the fact, as we were talking about the assisted dying bill, Mark that, um, next week will be a slight change in our schedule for next week's episode because you and I will be recording not on our usual Thursday, but on Friday, so that we can actually cover the outcome of report stage of the assisted dying bill. So next week's episode will be on your feed on Saturday 17th of May, not Friday 16th, as would be normal.

Mark D'Arcy: I hope that your normal Friday doesn't seem too empty without us.

Ruth Fox: And with that listeners, just a reminder, please do fill in that listener survey at the top of the show notes in your [00:53:00] podcast app.

And, a big thank you to Matthew for joining us to deal with the complexities and techy questions that frankly other political podcasts don't do.

Mark D'Arcy: Reach the parts that other podcasts have never attempted to reach.

Ruth Fox: And there may be a reason for that. See you next week.

Mark D'Arcy: Bye-bye.

Matthew England: Thank you.

Intro: Parliament Matters is produced by the Hansard Society and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. For more information, visit hansardsociety.org.uk/pm or find us on social media at Hansard Society.

← Back to Parliament Matters episode page