Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping their comments short so that I have time to respond. First, on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve but think that his amendments achieve the opposite, as they blur the line. The term "special advisers" is understood. I take the same view as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing); it is a noble profession that allows political support and advice to be given to Ministers while maintaining the integrity and impartiality of civil servants. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North will withdraw his amendment. I have every sympathy with his intention, but I do not think that his amendments will achieve what he wants. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), may I say that I think that there is a lot of force to his point about the need for us to be clear about what special advisers can and cannot do? He has already mentioned the debate that has been had and it is widely agreed that Ministers need advice and assistance. That is an important role to fulfil, and the first act of the Prime Minister in 2007 was to remove the position— Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day). The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made. Amendment 79 negatived. The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D). Amendment made: 36, page 4, line 35, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—