Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I am grateful for the intervention. There will not be much of a peroration. It is the Member for Blackburn speaking, not a latter-day Enoch Powell. I shall answer some of the more specific questions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about what he thought was a tautology in new schedule 7, paragraph 5(4), which states:"". . . if a county court so orders . . . as if it were payable under an order of that court."" That is standard form wording used in social security legislation. I re-read it and I think it works. The money resolution related specifically to the pension provisions, which will obviously transfer a liability for pensions, but there is no net increase over and above what would otherwise have been paid. We expect the other provisions to be broadly neutral, as compared with where we were before, as IPSA will be losing functions as well as gaining ones. Overall pay and pensions will not add hugely to running costs because IPSA is already paying. A small policy function will be required, and it will use the SSRB to do the analysis. I have dealt with the issue of delay in pay and pensions, the issue of the compliance officer being wholly separate, and double jeopardy. I was asked whether a new compliance officer could be in post before Royal Assent and before April. Subject to the approval of the Committee today, which is the equivalent of a Second Reading of the new clauses, we are exploring with IPSA whether it would have the legal basis to go ahead and advertise for a compliance officer. It is entirely a matter for IPSA, but I hope it feels able to do so. Whether that means that the compliance officer will be in post by 1 April is a moot point, but I think we can expect the compliance officer to be in post by the time there is anything to comply with and any complaint to be made. I think IPSA will be able to meet that requirement. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asked about new schedule 7 on page 668 of the amendment paper. Paragraph 1, which gives the power to make a repayment direction, states at sub-paragraph (4)(b) that a Member could be required to""pay to the IPSA an amount reasonably representing the costs incurred by the IPSA in relation to the overpayment"." The suggestion was that that went far further than Kelly had recommended. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at recommendation 45 on page 19 of the Kelly report, he will see that it says:""The independent regulator's enforcement regime should be strengthened by giving it the power to… Require the repayment of wrongly paid or misclaimed sums, with associated costs if appropriate."" I shall certainly look again at whether the Bill goes too far. When the right hon. Gentleman first raised the matter, I thought that it did, but on further examination it does not. The issue is about reasonableness, which is better than appropriateness, and the Bill would be more tightly worded if it read,""reasonably representing the costs incurred by the IPSA"." A requirement under that proposed new sub-paragraph could alone be the subject of an appeal to the first tier tribunal. Finally, Members asked why it was necessary to provide for the examination and calling of witnesses before the compliance officer. Those provisions are about my anxiety to meet the wishes of the House, and they were recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights in respect of previous legislation. If one is charged with a serious breach of regulations, one ought to have the opportunity, if necessary, to call one's own witnesses and to examine others. I think that that is a basic human right, with a capital H and a capital R. The situation might not come to that, and one hopes that it will not, but that right is pretty fundamental. In any case, one would have the right before the first tribunal, which would amount to a re-hearing of the case from the start. I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. If the House will forgive me, it will, I hope, take those detailed explanations as a substitute for a lengthy, prolix peroration. I commend the new clauses and schedules to the House. Question put and agreed to. New clause 70 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.