Recall of MPs Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

First, let me say that we will miss my right hon. Friend in this House, and we are sorry that he has recalled himself. As he knows, MPs are disqualified from attending the House if they are sentenced to imprisonment for more than a year, but not below that. That is a gap, and this Bill puts forward a means of closing it. The other thing that this Bill does is enable the House to put before the electorate the question of whether an MP, who has been severely sanctioned by the Standards and Privileges Committee and suspended for more than 21 days, should continue in post. There are cases of Members who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for less than a year to whom this Bill would directly apply.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that there are people who have been sentenced to prison to whom this Bill would directly apply. Who are those people?

[Greg Clark]

Clearly, this Bill would not apply retrospectively, but the two people who would have been caught are Chris Huhne and Eric Illsley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that we are proceeding with caution. We recognise that this is a novel constitutional step, and our traditions are that we exercise caution in such circumstances. The Prime Minister made it clear during last week’s Question Time that we regard the provisions as a minimum, and the various arguments that have been deployed today can be properly considered in Committee and on Report. Of course, whatever the House and the other place decide, it will be open to future Parliaments—one will begin next year—to consider whether to take things further still. That is the spirit in which we are proceeding.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I would take the Government’s position more seriously if, at the start of this Parliament in 2010, they had not made it almost impossible for this House to recall a Government.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend takes us on to an area that could detain us for the rest of the day. He and I would prefer to be implementing all the Conservative party’s manifesto commitments, but the electorate did not give us a majority, so we formed a coalition, which I think has made great achievements, not least by turning around the economy through its effective, long-term economic plan.

Let me set out the provisions that will govern the debate not just today, but in Committee and on Report. There are two conditions under which a recall petition would be opened. The first trigger is if a Member of Parliament is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. At present, any MP who is imprisoned for more than a year is automatically disqualified from Parliament, but if they receive a sentence of 12 months or less, they can keep their job until the next general election. The Bill will close that loophole.

The imprisonment of a Member of Parliament will, quite understandably, cause many constituents to question their faith in that MP. Incarceration not only indicates serious wrongdoing, but prevents that Member from doing their job effectively, so the Government believe that constituents should be able to decide whether there should be a by-election in such circumstances. Of course, it would remain open for the recalled Member of Parliament to stand as a candidate in that by-election, should they wish to justify the actions that led to that sentence of imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the risk of a relatively small minority of—to use his phrase—vexatious constituents abusing the system. That is a risk with a pure recall system, as I will explain in a moment.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I have great admiration for members of the public—after all, they are my electorate—but could the shadow Minister define “genuine members of the public”?

[Stephen Twigg]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question. Did I use that phrase?

[Mr Walker]

The shadow Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) that we should involve “genuine members of the public”, but what does that mean? “Genuine members of the public” is a political phrase like “innocent victims”—I have never come across a guilty victim. What are “genuine members of the public”?

[Stephen Twigg]

They are those who are representative of the full range of the public. Often people who are appointed to some of these committees will tend to be—how shall I put it?—the great and the good, who are not necessarily entirely representative of the full range of the public. That is what I understood by the phrase, “genuine members of the public”. Of course, there will be strong opinions on both sides of this debate, which is why the Committee stage will be so important.

Let me now address the amendments that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is likely to table. First, I welcome his contribution and that of all Members on the committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). It is probably fair to say that the Government may not have put this Bill before the House had it not been for their hard work and persistence. The proposals of the hon. Member for Richmond Park manage to avoid some of the problems associated with the Government’s Bill. As he said in his intervention, there would be no issues about unfairly allowing a petition when an MP is imprisoned for protest; about having to debate the length of suspension from this place; or about the independence of any recall trigger mechanism. His likely amendments would allow for the trigger to be in the hands of the people, and there is a simplicity to that proposal that is, of course, attractive.

The hon. Gentleman’s proposals, however, run into trouble when we assess the potential effect on the constitutional role of Members of Parliament. If we accept that the job of an MP is to be a representative, not a delegate, that has consequences for where we stand in this debate. MPs on both sides of the House need to be able to sometimes make difficult decisions. Sometimes they have to fulfil roles in government and there is a risk that the hon. Gentleman’s likely amendments could challenge that.

For example, the hon. Gentleman’s model of recall—the pure model—has the potential to give enormous power to well-funded, wealthy groups and organisations that could run concerted campaigns to pressure MPs to act in a certain way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

It is correct, so hopefully the hon. Member for Bolsover will not be appalled that I have used that figure. Is he an hon. Member who merits recall? No, he is not. Would he have qualified for recall under these plans? Probably, yes.

[Mr Charles Walker]

My hon. Friend mentioned pressure groups from the left and the right of politics. I have not had a single e-mail from a constituent on this issue that has not been initiated by a pressure group template, so he should not overestimate the public’s interest in the Bill.

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is interesting. I have been bombarded. I even received a letter this morning that said, “Dear Zac Goldsmith, we very much hope that you will support Zac Goldsmith’s amendments.” I take my hon. Friend’s point, but as is shown by all the surveys on this issue, of which there have been a great many over the past few months, if this proposal is put to members of the public, it is something that they support.

The amendments that my colleagues and I will table in due course are based on a Bill that was put together by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which was crowdsourced. Some 40,000 people, many of whom were members of 38 Degrees and other organisations, went through it line by line and fed in their comments. It has engaged a large number of people. I cannot think of another Bill that has been subjected to that level of crowdsourcing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is not at all what I am saying. I do not want to trivialise the concern of Members across the House that this tool might be abused. The threshold is therefore sufficiently high—it is possible to argue, perhaps rightly, that the threshold is too high—to make it impossible for the right to be abused by vexatious campaigns by minority groups, pressure groups and so on. It is simply inconceivable that that could happen.

[Mr Charles Walker]

My hon. Friend and I have had many civilised conversations about this matter over recent weeks. My concern centres on the 5% trigger. He knows full well that he and I could visit his local Sainsbury’s or Tesco on any matter and secure 3,750 signatures. My concern is over that initial threshold. Perhaps a better threshold would be 10% of those who voted at the previous election. For example, if 50,000 votes had been cast, the figure would be 5,000.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that 5% is about the right level, and that was the consensus of the committee of Back Benchers, which represented seven different parties—5% was the figure that people centred on. I think that 3,500 signatures is a high threshold in one month, but I accept that it is a lot easier than 20% of signatures in person in the town hall. However, I am open to attempts on Report to amend the amendments that I and colleagues will be tabling. A consensus that 5% is too low and that 10% will meet the approval of the House is for me an issue not of principle but of detail. If that is what it takes for the House to be comfortable with the proposals, I will politely go with the flow on that. The principle is what matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The proof of that is that after those events, in the 2005 election, I increased my majority. I can only assume that that proves that it pays to advertise.

My argument is simple, really. Yes, let us have recall; it is an important next stage in the democratic process. We have to open up that little sliver of democracy in the political process, because the leviathan is groaning. We need to change, but we need to ensure that we sort out the financial thing, that this cannot be done vexatiously and that we have a high enough threshold.

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have finished.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I put in to speak in this debate with righteous indignation because I thought I was going to be entertained to a ghastly speech from the Deputy Prime Minister, who tries to make himself look big by making this place look small and who persists in talking about broken politics. Unfortunately, that task fell to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who talked about our broken Parliament. We must not conflate our political parties with Parliament. Our political parties may come and go, but hopefully Parliament will remain a constant.

I see this as an opportunity to talk about what I still respect, admire and revere about this place. We need champions of Parliament, and I must say that the thing that still excites me most about this place and what it offers our constituents is accountability. Is it not extraordinary? We take it for granted that a member of the public can write to me, their Member of Parliament, because they are concerned about a policy—an education policy, or a transport policy, for example—and I will take that concern up and write to the Minister. And here it is: we get a response from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Education or, on occasion, the Prime Minister. We diminish that in this place, but it is truly remarkable. It is not replicated in many parts of Europe and it is scarce around the world.

Let us be careful before we use the Bill as an opportunity to attack this Parliament. Parliament is not broken. I have seen many colleagues in this place achieve remarkable things, not just for their constituents but for the nation at large, and I have the utmost respect for them and the power this place provides them with to do those wonderful things.

[Conor Burns]

I share my hon. Friend’s reverence and respect for the institution of Parliament, and I very much agree with the points he is making. However, does he agree that one reason why this place has fallen into some disrepute is that we have given so many powers away? In exercising our constituency responsibilities, we are finding that powers have been given to the European Union and unelected quangos. This place needs to take more power back.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Institutions are only as powerful as the trust that people have in them, and I am concerned when our sovereign Parliament is overruled by supranational bodies, as that undermines faith in the institution. It is the same with our courts. My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point.

Let me also touch on a couple of other things that have been said today. We are often told that we are out of touch by our constituents, but in reality that is code for, “You disagree with my point of view.” I understand that, but I am not out of touch with my constituents. They might not like me and they might not like what I stand for, but every morning I travel in from my constituency and every evening I go back. I am pleased to meet my constituents on the platform and, in the main, they pretend to be pleased to meet me. I spend numerous weekends out and about in my community, not just having surgeries but going to the shops—I am an ordinary Member of Parliament. Let us take all of this with a pinch of salt and let us not self-flagellate constantly about our standing and the standing of Parliament.

I shall not detain the House much longer, but let me just make a point that I touched on in an intervention. In 2010, the Bill that became the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was introduced in this place. I did not support it and, in reality, it made it much more difficult for us as Members of Parliament to recall the Government. I found that extraordinary, and I find it even more extraordinary now that a recall Bill is being promoted by those on the Front Bench that will, in essence, further entrench the power of the Executive as opposed to the interests of Back Benchers.

I have some concerns. I accept that the Minister is here with good intentions, but there are genuine concerns about the Government’s proposals, as there are about the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I hope that we can reach a solution that carries the confidence of this House and of our constituents. Let us not forget that we all serve in a wonderful Parliament and one that many would like to replicate around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Carswell]

Absolutely. I would ask people again to apply the Ian Gibson test. If the Standards and Privileges Committee had been left to make the key decision in those heated and fevered moments during the MPs’ expenses scandal, would it not have been under intense media pressure to make the wrong choice by that good and decent Member of Parliament? I think it would have been. It is wrong for the Standards and Privileges Committee to have this role. It is right, if we want more lay members to be involved, for us not to seek to increase the number of lay members on the Standards and Privileges Committee, but to trust the voters. It puzzles me that people still struggle with the idea that the voters should decide whether or not to trigger the process, for they are the ultimate jury.

I shall support the Bill this evening. I shall do so because I am confident that it can be amended and made meaningful, and confident that many of the amendments that will be tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be successful. Unless that happens, this recall measure will remain a sham, a fix, a pretence of change so that Westminster can stay the same. Proper recall will end safe seat syndrome, which is what has really hamstrung our democracy. In four of the past five elections, fewer than one in 10 seats have changed hands. Even at the time of the 1997 great Labour landslide, only three in 10 changed hands. In other words, seven out of 10 seats are safe seats. There is almost a zero chance of those Members losing their seats unless they fall foul of the Whips. They are fiefdoms. That means that MPs answer to other MPs. The great destructive mechanism in our democracy, the Whips Office, is all-powerful.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Gentleman said that recall would end safe seat syndrome. How will it do that?

[Douglas Carswell]

At present, the career trajectories of MPs in safe seats are determined by how obsequious they are to Ministers, and on whether or not the Whips think highly of them and give them promotion. If a Member is vulnerable to a recall election—if he is vulnerable to the views of the voters—he may start to face outward to the voters. Even if he is in a safe seat, he will know that he can lose his position if he breaks his promises and does not do what he said he was going to do. Recall would mean that instead of facing inward and chasing favour with the Whips, MPs would become outward-facing, and I think that that would revive and reinvigorate our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Mention has been made today of the disengagement with politics in the wider context, but it might be good news for the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that politics in Scotland is now going through a veritable purple patch—a renaissance, even—and that we have perhaps the most engaged and politically literate electorate in the whole of Europe.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Am I right in thinking that even the Conservative party is having a renaissance in Scotland?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman might be on to something, but I think that it might have to be called a relative renaissance. Polls have shown that the Conservative party’s figures have not increased much, if at all, in Scotland, although they are above those of the Labour party. It is not really much of a renaissance at all. However, I do not want to be distracted by the political ill weather for Labour and the Conservatives north of the border, because that is not the matter before the House this afternoon.

I hope that there is much agreement on the idea of a recall Bill, but the disagreement lies in whether we should have an open recall Bill or the more prescribed recall Bill that the Government propose.

I want to say quite a bit about the Government’s attitude and approach to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was absolutely right to say that among the problems with the Government’s Bill are its reliance on the Standards and Privileges Committee and the justice of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had looked into that matter, and it did not surprise me that there was such a justice differential between those inside the gilded circle and those outwith it.

The proposal for a 10% threshold is dangerous. A safer mechanism for recall would involve a 5% threshold, followed by 20% and then a simple majority in a referendum. This process should be an extension of democracy and, if we get to that point, there should be a secret ballot—or an Australian ballot, as it was originally called. The prescribed route also carries the danger that it mentions trigger conditions, such as a jailing. Mentioning the conditions would make a recall more likely because it would light up the minds of those in journalistic circles, who would start to crank up the machinery that could lead to what history suggests might sometimes be the wrong steps being taken.

I am thinking in particular of Terry Fields, who was jailed for 60 days in 1991 and was probably released to a hero’s welcome, as indeed was Tommy Sheridan in Scotland, although he was not an elected politician when he was also jailed for non-payment of the poll tax. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made an important point about the Cyprus situation in the 1950s. He suggested that Members should be given a degree of latitude and have the freedom to speak their minds, because sometimes an uncomfortable truth is a great servant to us all.

The open route would allow us more easily to ignore some of the many reasons that the establishment might see as triggers for a recall, and allow us to take a more open approach. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said in an intervention on the opening speech, it should be no longer MPs who define their own behaviour, but society at large. The open method allows the recall mechanism to be a dynamic process that takes account of circumstances. Some might feel that lying to the country or to Parliament to take the nation to war might reasonably be open to recall but that would not be included in legislation by the Government.

The overarching point is that recall should be a sanction of last resort. It should not be used much, and hopefully it will not be used much—it should be little needed and little used—but it is a sanction that should be available. At the stage we are at now in our ever-evolving democratic countries—evolving due to social media, certainly—the proposals before us would provide another arm of participatory democracy.

Whoever instigates a recall and whatever mechanism triggers it, it should have a reasonable chance of success. I mentioned the example of Terry Fields. He would have been re-elected anyway, and to use the recall mechanism against an MP who is clearly going to come back with a thumping majority would be an abuse. It should have a real chance of succeeding in removing the MP. As has been said, perhaps an MP removal mechanism is what it is. Therefore, and perhaps with the fear of the vexatious recall in mind as well, we might consider requiring a bond or deposit—some sum so that those engaged in this have to put some money where their mouths are, as do those who engage in elections or by-elections, in order for them genuinely to demonstrate to the wider public that this is not a whim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but—dare I say it—I think it is a little simplistic because so many other factors govern an MP’s life and the way he or she behaves. There is, for example, party loyalty, although many would call me a rebel so perhaps I am not a good example of that.

[Mr Charles Walker]

We in this place all search for a silver bullet and an easy solution to our problems. In 2009 it was the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that would resolve all these problems. Has it? I do not think so. We must be realistic. Recall may have a place, but the idea that it will somehow restore faith in this place is pie in the sky.

[Richard Drax]

I agree entirely. What will restore faith in this place is us—the parties and individuals that make up this great place. It is our duty to do that, and I do not think we need a recall Bill to prove that point.

As I have said, the Bill, sadly, is a knee-jerk reaction. The hon. Member for Clacton asked why it has taken four and a half years to come to this place, and I wonder—no doubt I shall be shot down by the three party leaders and many of my colleagues—whether because it was a knee-jerk reaction, in time people have thought, “Is this actually a sensible Bill?” I think they have come to the conclusion that in the main it is not, although at the time it may have seemed attractive, and to a certain extent it may have appeased the electorate. Will it solve the problem? I do not believe it will.

There is some logic to the Government Bill. Apparently, there are no rules and regulations if we get a custodial sentence under 12 months. If we do receive a custodial sentence—there have been various examples of that—it means there are big questions to be asked, and in a sense the Bill covers that. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras said he was concerned about the figure of 10%, and asked about the other 90%. Again, I entirely concur with that point.

I also agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend, but I do not agree with any of his amendments for all the reasons I have set out. I shall not repeat them, but I would like to point out what the letter we all received from Cabinet Office Ministers, dated 20 October 2014, says in explaining the intention of the Bill:

“In formulating their proposals the Government has examined international models which allow elected representatives to be recalled on any grounds. The recall model proposed in the Government’s Bill fits with and goes further than Parliamentary democracies similar to ours—Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not have recall in their main legislatures.”

I do not like comparisons with other countries. They are always dangerous. One of the many reasons why the eurozone is such a complete flop is that all the countries are so different and cannot be put in the same straitjacket. The same principle applies here.

I shall move on briefly to another point that counters the Bill. We are all elected by our local associations. Each party has its own system. Were I to commit an offence that constituted serious misconduct, I have no doubt—I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House would have no doubt—that I would be summoned to the local association office to explain myself. That is the local face of our party. The local associations select us and they have the power to deselect us. In that conversation, if my chairman was to say to me, “Richard, up with you we shall not put any longer”, I hope that, if my action had been so heinous, I would have already resigned. However, if I had not resigned I would be pushed. If the chairman did not do the job then, along with the party hierarchy, the party should be prepared to say to the sitting MP, “Up with this we will not put.”

That leads to a question. Let us say the polls are against the party and the sitting MP and suddenly there is a potential by-election. Every instinct in the parliamentary party would say, “For heaven’s sake, a by-election is the last thing we need in that seat.” But this is where honour, responsibility and all the things we must show to the public that we have come in; and I believe that we do have those things. The party hierarchy should say, “Tough. We may lose this seat, but the sitting MP has committed such a heinous crime that we have to get rid of him or her and have a by-election.” Those are the sort of people who should be making these decisions. They should not be made by legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

If people want to recall on that basis, yes, they should be able to do so, which is why I am supporting the amendments. The hon. Gentleman challenges me on something that I have already stated I believe in.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I refer to him in that way because I like him very much—on most things, but the beauty of being a Member of Parliament is that there is no job description. It is not a job; it is a vocation. We all bring our unique experiences to this place, and I think that anything that undermined that would be to the detriment of the House of Commons.

[Mark Durkan]

I take the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not accept it literally. If we are to talk about having a recall power—whether it be in the terms of this Bill or any other—I believe there needs to be a yardstick. If the House of Commons is to adjudicate itself or to ask a select number of us to adjudicate the rest in respect of standards and privileges, there must be some clear standards.

Many of the misgivings people have expressed about the decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee over recent years have been because there has not been an apparent consistent standard in some of the judgments made and the decisions subsequently transacted. If we as hon. Members have misgivings about how those decisions are made and if we do not always understand them, why should we not expect the public to suspect the same thing? Should we be able to say, “Unlike many other people about whom we legislate, and unlike in many other walks of life where we provide all sorts of detailed schedules, guidelines and regulations, we are to be entirely free agents. We are the purest of democratic angels, moved by whatever spirit or inspiration takes us, and we are to be trusted as such”? We cannot present ourselves in that way.

Let me return to core points about the Bill’s deficiencies. As hon. Members have said, it is essentially an expulsion Bill rather than a recall Bill. Recall is meant to put things in the hands of the voters. Calling this measure the Recall of MPs Bill is a bit like the old joke about the two-hour dry cleaners: “‘Come back next Monday and you’ll get your suit.’ “But it says ‘two-hour dry cleaners’ outside”. ‘No, that’s just the name of the shop.’” Recall of MPs seems to be just the name of the Bill; that capacity is not given to voters. Insofar as a role is given to voters in respect of the recall process, it is simply that if someone triggers either of the two mechanisms, 10% will trigger a by-election. I think that the idea of a by-election being triggered by 10% is wrong, particularly if there has been a lot of speculation and felon setting by the media, which hon. Members fear. Those who fear that sort of scenario should certainly oppose the Bill as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I was involved not least because of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s comments on the draft Bill but, more specifically for my purposes, because the Standards Committee suggested that the second trigger should be recast. The Standards Committee’s reservations are now dealt with in this Bill.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As important as recall is, what was much more important in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 was fixing this country’s economy, and ensuring that people could pay their mortgages and remain in work. Let us not overestimate the Bill’s importance, because—dare I say?—the Public Gallery is not doing so.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not suppose that I am overestimating the Bill’s importance, although it was important that we delivered on our manifesto promises and the coalition agreement. Achieving that was at the forefront of our minds as we set out our legislative programme, for which I had responsibility.

I was slightly amused that the speech made by the hon. Member for Clacton was largely about the importance of delivering on promises made at the previous election. The Bill exactly delivers on the promise in the Conservative party’s general election manifesto, and I think that that was why the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), started his speech by reminding us what that manifesto said. For me, as a Conservative, the Bill is directly in line with that promise, and shifting to a process that is substantially different from that under the Bill would involve making a presumption about what the legislation should be without our having a mandate from the electorate. The hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Clacton showed in their speeches that they would like a different constitutional settlement, of which the power of recall that they want is only one small aspect.

Debate on the Address

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate on the last Queen’s Speech before the general election. I spoke in the debate on this Government’s first Queen’s Speech in 2010, absented myself from the next three and arrived just in time for the fifth.

There are many good things in this Queen’s Speech—that is obvious—but I was drawn to one key sentence, which states:

“A key priority for my ministers will be to continue to build an economy that rewards those who work hard.”

That is what it is all about. In Broxbourne, good men and women wake up every morning and head off to work in order to do the right thing: pay their mortgage, put food on the table for their families, raise their children and be good citizens. They are undemanding people, but they are the backbone of this country and they need to know that the Government are on their side.

I want to pick out two or three very important things from the Queen’s Speech. The first relates to zero-hours contracts. My background is as a recruiter and traditionally I have been pro-flexible labour markets, but I find zero-hours contracts slightly abhorrent, to be perfectly honest. In a previous life, I used to write company reports for plcs, and one of the great lines I used to craft was, “Our people are our greatest asset.” It was corporate social responsibility nonsense. To be perfectly honest, a lot of what is written in company reports by large plcs is hot air and waffle.

I do not think that responsible employers should be going down the route of zero-hours contracts. They have a minimum obligation to the people who work for them, and I do not think that zero-hours contracts meet that obligation. Personally, I would do away with all these corporate social responsibility statements in company annual reports. I think they are meaningless. What we need to know is how these companies treat the people who work for them. How do they look after them? How do they pay them? How do they take care of them when they fall ill or when they have a mental health or physical health crisis? That is what it is all about and we as shareholders, politicians and the public need to ask demanding questions of the companies, because, other than the numbers, what is written on the pages of a company report is absolutely meaningless.

It is critical that the men and women in my constituency who own, manage and run small businesses are confident that the large multinationals are paying their taxes. I receive weekly complaints from hard-working men and women about letters they have received from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs crafted in a very aggressive way. These people are working extremely hard. They are conscientious, law abiding and the backbone of the economy. It really sticks in their craw when they see large multinationals such as Starbucks and Amazon appear before Select Committees and readily admit that they pay no or almost no corporation tax in this country. We talk about remaining competitive and being attractive for overseas investment, but let us be honest: these companies are here because they need our markets and access to the 65 million potential customers who live in this country.

I am delighted that this coalition Government and this Conservative Prime Minister are looking at zero-hours contracts and corporate social responsibility, and that they will challenge and pursue companies that do not meet their obligations under the minimum wage. All of us in this place, regardless of where we sit, are on the side of the men and women who, day in and day out, try their damnedest to do the right thing. We are not here to protect the vested interest, be it in the City or large corporate boardrooms; we are here to look after those people who go out and vote. Corporations do not vote, but people running businesses in our constituencies vote, and they are the ones doing the right thing.

Mr Speaker, as you magically appear in the Chair to replace Mr Deputy Speaker, let me wind up by having one last thrash around the important issue of housing. Colleagues will be familiar with families—they come to our surgeries almost weekly—who are working extremely hard to do the right thing. They do not have high-paying jobs, and probably never will have, but they are making all the right decisions that we value and on which we place emphasis. Both adults are in work and are conscientious, and both are committed to their community, their workplace and their family. They have not had numerous children, but have perhaps limited themselves to one or two because, as they say, “That’s what we can afford, Mr Walker.” They have been on a housing waiting list for 10 years while living in a one-bedroom flat with two children. That is not right. We need a system that rewards such hard workers and people who try desperately hard to make the right and responsible decisions.

On the vexed issue of housing, it is simply an inescapable truth that we need to build not just more homes, but better homes—places where people actually want to live—and that we need to build communities, not boxes. Some of the recent development in the past decade or 15 years in my constituency is simply not up to scratch: it is just not good enough. If we are to persuade communities in this country to take more houses, people have got to want them, so they have got to be high-quality houses that will create a community and allow it to grow and prosper. I ask the Government and people in public life to be more imaginative about the provision of affordable housing.

One key thing in society is to give people a stake in society. It is impossible to imagine that everybody could afford to go out and buy their own home, even with Help to Buy—it is just not possible for people in every circumstance to raise the money to buy a home of their own—but it is possible to give them the opportunity to own part of a home through shared ownership. Shared ownership has been around for several years. We need to promote it and to make it more available. Their share does not have to be 50% or 75%; it could start at 5% or 10%. It would, however, give people a stake in their community.

Doing so would also overcome much of the hostility to social and affordable housing. I find it extraordinary that people who are good, kind and decent for 99.9% of their life turn up at my surgery shaking with rage about social housing being built, saying, “What type of people will we get in our community, Mr Walker? Who are these people?” I reply, “Well, they might be nurses, teachers or police officers.” “Really?” they ask. “Of course,” I reply. Those types of people now cannot afford to buy a home in many parts of the country, even with Help to Buy and the other great initiatives promoted by the Government. Let us be imaginative about housing, let us embrace new forms of ownership and let us give people a real chance of owning, living in or having a stake in a quality home in a quality community that gives them a high quality of life.

I have detained the House long enough. I am extremely proud to be a Conservative MP. I have enjoyed it immensely for the past 10 years and I hope that I will get another chance to be Broxbourne’s Member of Parliament after the general election in 2015. However, that is not in my gift, but in the gift of my constituents. What will matter next year is whether people feel confident that the Government will be sound in their management of the country’s finances. When people go and put a tick in the box—whoever they vote for—they will be thinking, “Which party offers me the best chance with my mortgage? Which party offers me the best chance of having a job that is secure and that offers the hope of promotion and advancement? Which party offers me the best chance of having a good school at the end of my road that I can get my children into, so that they have the best chance in life?” Those are the things that matter. My party does not have a monopoly on great ideas; there are many good people on the Labour Benches. I hope that in 2015 we have a mature debate about the issues that really matter to our constituents. I look forward to engaging in that debate, to touring the wonderful sunlit uplands of Broxbourne and to bringing joy and hope to those I represent.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I shall try to be brief, Mr Speaker.

I did not know Lady Thatcher. I met her on a few occasions, but I admired her from afar. I rise to pay my respects and to pass on the respects of many tens of thousands of my constituents who would want me to be here today. She was a great woman, a great Prime Minister and she had love of this country emblazoned on her heart.

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

This House is at its best when there is an element of tension in the debate, and I am concerned that there is not that tension today.

We have a pretty revolting press in this country; I realised that from about the age of 18 onwards. It is pretty unpleasant, to be perfectly honest; there is not much merit in much of its coverage. However, I am concerned that so many speakers are saying that we must have a free press, must respect that free press, and must enshrine the freedom of the press in some form or in some law, because I thought that a free press was simply part of the deal of living in this democracy. I also worry when we say that we are not enshrining these new laws in statute. We have amendments on the Order Paper and we talk about having to pass this into law both in this House and in the House of Lords. To me, that feels very much like statutory regulation and legislation.

I have the greatest sympathy for all the people who were turned over by the press. Although it is unfashionable to say so, I also have a great deal of sympathy for many of our former colleagues who were turned over the press; I think that many of them were very good men and women. The truth is that more than 50 journalists have been arrested and face a date in court.

The police seem to be getting their act together. They are rooting out the bad practice whereby police officers sell stories or are in the pockets of the media. We are getting to grips with that issue. Another part of the problem we are facing up to is that the leaders of the main political parties have been far too cosy with the media for far too long. We cannot separate those relationships from what is happening here today. As a political class, we have failed as well.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I understand why my hon. Friend is unhappy, but does he take any comfort from the fact that we have been able to argue that it is right to take the route of the royal charter, which was once a minority view, as opposed to other forms of regulation?

[Mr Walker]

I note my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I remain concerned about the royal charter. Even changing the royal charter requires the changes to be laid before both Houses and to secure a resolution by two thirds in both Houses. We do not do things by two thirds in this place; we do things by 50% plus one.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The two-thirds thing is obviously nonsense, because this House cannot bind its successors and a future Parliament can simply delete it.

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that the two-thirds provision is nonsense. It first appeared in this House as part of the fixed-term Parliament legislation. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

I have probably gone on for far too long. Many better speeches than mine will be made today, and already have been. All I would say is that we have to strike a note of caution. I am not sure that today is the wonderful day that everyone is portraying it to be; in fact, I think it is a very sad day. I hope that we do not live to regret this at some stage in the future.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am pleased to engage in that debate. I will come to it when I address the amendments tabled by the Opposition. At this early stage, I should say that in essence it is a question of the assurance provided to external partners as well as the operation of the courts themselves. I hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I hope he accepts that the proposal for an annual review or, in effect, an annual sunset clause in the first instance and then an annual renewal thereafter, does not leave a great deal of time for litigation, which is likely to span several years because of its nature and complexity. I am sure that we will hear more from the Opposition about why they have sought to advance this time period over anything else. There is a principle at stake as regards the assurance that we are seeking to provide through this mechanism. We have gone for the option of five-yearly reporting, with a proper examination of the operation of the Bill, to enable Parliament to be properly informed. It will then be for Parliament to consider what further steps may or may not be appropriate at that point.

We would expect such a review to take into account the views of special advocates, among others. We want to ensure that it will involve a proper examination of the operation of CMPs to consider efficiency, trends and types of cases, analysing the numbers provided in the annual reports to reflect on how CMPs are being used.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

How many CMPs does my hon. Friend anticipate there being in any one year?

[James Brokenshire]

Our latest estimate in October was that about 20 cases would fall within the scope of these proceedings, and the regulatory impact assessment indicates up to 15 cases annually. The point is to ensure that there is annual reporting of the forthcoming CMP applications and judgments so that Parliament is regularly updated. We will get a better sense of the situation on an annual basis than if we went for quarterly reporting. That would be too short a period given the nature of litigation and the length of time that these cases are likely to take to go through the courts.

Let me deal with the Opposition new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Chair of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, whose Committee I also had the pleasure of serving on, would agree that it, too, might have a role to play in keeping some of this under review. I mostly have thanks for the Minister, but we still need this idea of a regular renewal process just in case it turns out that things are going wrong.

[Mr Charles Walker]

In addressing the new clauses, the Minister said it was important to maintain confidence in our legal system—not only for us to do so, but for our many thousands of constituents to do so. That is why it is so important constantly to review the impact of closed material proceedings. The Minister gave a figure of 15 or more cases a year going through this process, which is not an inconsequential number. Since entering this place, I have seen changes to our legal system that have worried me, such as the introduction of double jeopardy, and the fact that we now seem happy to imprison people for 20 years and when we discover that they did not commit the crime for which they were imprisoned we do not think that they should have much compensation, if any. We are now going down the route of secret courts, so reviewing the impact and consequences of secret proceedings is enormously important, because many thousands of my constituents and many millions of people across the length and breadth of this country are made very nervous by this change, coming on top of other changes. What happens in other EU countries that have proceedings similar to closed material proceedings? What happens in other liberal western democracies?

I conclude my comments by saying that over the weekend a number of Conservative colleagues whom I respect and admire immensely were talking about the UK leaving the European Court of Human Rights. I would support that, but I smile when I find that on the Monday we are talking about bringing in secret courts, as the two things do not make comfortable bedfellows. Thank you very much for allowing me a brief moment on my feet, Mr Speaker.

[James Brokenshire]

We have had an interesting debate on these new clauses. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) described the Bill as complex, controversial and important and asked whether I would accept his analysis. I agree that it is complex, inasmuch as we are dealing with the need for closed material proceedings and the nature of sensitive material. It is controversial and it is clearly very important, as it relates to the assurances we are seeking to give to overseas partners and, obviously, to the nature of justice itself, which was very much a feature of the preceding debate. In the context of his description, I certainly recognise the need for an assurance to this House and to the public about how the powers and provisions in the Bill will be used in practice, as well as on the points that have been made about that.

In essence, that question was at the heart of our debate in Committee about the utility, effectiveness and proportionality of the use of closed material proceedings and the frequency of their use, which, in many ways, touches on the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We have given an indication of how many cases are expected per year, but clearly the reporting mechanism we envisage is intended to provide a sense of how many times the provisions will be used in that way.

I shall focus on a number of points raised during the debate and characterise some of the themes that emerged. The first is the question of whether there should be a formal renewal process. The Opposition have sought to interpose an annual renewal through new clause 4, but even if we accept the principle, that is simply too short a time period for the reasons given by many right hon. and hon. Members. The House would not be able to assess the effectiveness and operation of the provisions, given that we are talking about cases that are likely to run for an extended period of time.

When we considered the timing and effectiveness of a renewal provision, going back as far as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, we looked back at what happened under control orders, which is perhaps the closest parallel to an annual renewal debate on which we can draw. I recall the annual debates on control orders and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will agree that some of them were sub-optimal, to say the least. In many respects, they became—[Interruption.] They were not, perhaps, the kind of fully formed debate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is seeking through new clause 4, because, in essence, they became a cursory discussion at the time for the annual renewal of the provision. The debates were often short, were not necessarily well attended and did not necessarily apply the level of scrutiny that he is looking for. It is difficult to see, if he is talking about a renewal 12 months after Royal Assent, what information would be available to inform consideration properly of whether the legislation was effective. If we put aside the detail of the principle, there is a clear issue with the timing.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for his contribution, both this evening and in Committee, highlighting the need for information to be available and the need for a mechanism for Parliament to assess these provisions. Equally, there could well be a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in examining the effectiveness of the legislation. Clearly, it will be for the ISC to examine that, but I note, for example, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided that it wishes to take evidence on the operation of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 after its first year. The Bill in no way prevents such scrutiny. It sets out the information and the mechanism that Parliament will be afforded to give assurance and to assess how the legislation is being applied.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am sure I am pre-empting matters and that my hon. Friend was going to come on to this later in his speech. I asked what happens in other western European countries when it comes to reviewing closed court proceedings. Can he tell me what other European countries do on such matters?

[James Brokenshire]

It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend’s question. Parallels are difficult to draw in this respect. I can think of one European jurisdiction that is seeking to examine the appointment of an independent reviewer of its own terrorism legislation. We are unusual in having an individual who does such work. People are reflecting on the input from David Anderson, the current reviewer, and his predecessor, Lord Carlile, shining a light and having access to sensitive materials better to inform the debate on sensitive issues relating to terrorist legislation.

I am not seeking to avoid my hon. Friend’s question. It is genuinely difficult to draw parallels with the type of court processes and the review structure that we have in this country, and to say that another country deals with the issue by having an x year review or some sort of renewal system or independent reviewer. It is hard to make such an analysis, because countries and their systems are so different.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about the provision of information and the need for a database. On closed proceedings and closed judgments, there is a database which is held and managed by the Home Office and will be updated three times a year in relation to closed judgments, to ensure that special advocates are able to look at summaries of legal principles in particularly sensitive judgments. Those will be added on a less routine basis to reduce the risk of the summary being linked to a particular case, because of the sensitivity of some of the details. It is intended that summaries of all future closed judgments will be entered into the database to inform debates and discussions and the work of the special advocates.

Part of the debate has been on the principle of whether there should be an annual sunset or renewal—whatever language we choose—or whether the system should be on a five-year basis, which I know that others have suggested as an alternative, although that option is not before the House tonight. The choice that the House has is whether to accept the Government’s new clauses on the provision of information and the review, which I hope it will, recognising that this is an addition that seeks to improve the Bill and the scrutiny and analysis that it provides.

Ultimately, if we were to introduce some form of renewal, we would have to face up to the message that that gives to some of our external partners on the control principle and the sharing of intelligence, given that one of the principles behind the changes being introduced is to give assurance to our external partners, recognising the point that David Anderson and others have made that, in essence, our relationship with a number of external partners has been affected by some cases. If we were to provide an annual renewal, it would materially impact on that. Equally, if we were to provide a further formal five-year renewal in the Bill, our judgment is that that would not provide the assurance to our external partners that is anticipated for our intelligence relationships.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

Jurors

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ‘, for’ in line 10 and insert—

‘(1) In section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (qualification for jury service)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (c) (but not the “and” after it),

(b) omit subsection (2), and

(c) in subsection (3), for “Part 2 of the Schedule” substitute “Schedule 1”.

(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (the title to which becomes “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”, with the title to Part 1 becoming “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and the title to Part 2 becoming “Other Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”)’.

My amendment would make a minor technical change to the amendments the Bill makes to the Juries Act 1974. It would remove the term “mentally disordered persons” from section 1 of the Act and tidy up the cross-referencing between section 1 and the list of those disqualified for jury service in schedule 1. The amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).

Specifically, the references to “Mentally disordered persons” in section 1 of the 1974 Act will be removed and further provisions made in section 1 consequential to that. That will leave the section so worded as to provide that those persons listed in schedule 1 to the 1974 Act will be disqualified from jury service. The title of schedule 1 to that Act will be amended to read “Persons Disqualified for Jury Service”. The headings to parts I and II of schedule 1 are amended accordingly, from “Mentally disordered persons” to “Persons subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005” and from “Persons disqualified” to “Other persons disqualified for jury service” respectively. The substantive change that the Bill makes to the 1974 Act, which is to remove the disqualification on service as a juror from those who voluntarily receive treatment in the community for a mental health disorder, remains the same.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I support the amendment. It will not change the Bill’s original wording to a great extent, but the language implications are very important. We must ensure that we deal with people who suffer from mental illness without the stigma of titles, so this small amendment is important. Clause 2 is also very important. Since we started discussing the Bill, I have received numerous e-mails and correspondence about it. A solicitor wrote to me to say that although she practises in court every day, she cannot be a juror because she is currently undergoing treatment for a mental health condition. The amendment would make a small change to the language, but I think it is important for the wider debate and for the wider implications of the Bill to ensure that we end discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker]

I just want to express a few thanks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for piloting the Bill so expertly through Parliament. What a fantastic job he has done! I thank Rowena Daw of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who has been a fantastic supporter of the Bill. I thank the officials. I suspect that there has been a true Horatio among them who has worked very hard to bring the Bill to fruition. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his sterling support from the Opposition Benches. He, too, has been a true hero.

This is great occasion for Parliament and I am glad to have had a small walk-on part in it.

Charitable Registration

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

Yes. Professor Rivers says that the law on the registration of religious charities

“is not completely clear and coherent… careful legal analysis and authoritative restatement would be helpful.”

One area of concern and confusion that he highlights is what we mean by the phrase “a section of the public” in relation to religious charities. If an organisation is to pass the test for charitable registration, a section of the public must benefit, but are not members of a denomination—the Methodists, for example—also members of the public? It has been suggested that the Charity Commission is trying to turn the question on its head by thinking of a class as restricted and therefore not consisting of members of the public, rather than as public because it is, on the face of it, open to all. The issue sounds complicated, but it is very important in the Plymouth Brethren case, in which it is clear that openness is a crucial factor in the Charity Commission’s thinking.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Is it not the role of Parliament to protect the rights of minorities?

[Fiona Bruce]

Yes, and to ensure that when they need access to justice, they can get it expeditiously and inexpensively.

The net result of the Charity Commission’s decision is that the Plymouth Brethren have had to go to enormous lengths to demonstrate the public benefit of their organisation and charitable activities by shouting about them in a way that they would not ordinarily have done.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who gave a simply fantastic speech.

I have spoken frequently about mental health over the last six years, often supported by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It will not come as a surprise to you, Mr Speaker, to learn that I have very little left to say on the subject. I would say, however, that I am simply delighted at what is happening today. We serve in a simply fantastic Parliament. We have fabulous colleagues here and they are doing great things in the area of mental health. Today’s Bill will provide so much hope and reassurance to many millions of people out there. They may not be watching the Chamber—I imagine only 3 million or 4 million are watching this morning’s debate—but over time we will change the view that people have of mental health problems.

On the other side of the Chamber, I see the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who, with me, in June admitted to his own mental health problems. I do not think he was prepared—I certainly was not—for the tsunami of interest that that created. The media were calling us almost hourly, asking for interviews and asking us to comment on what we had said. What was totally overwhelming was sitting in a studio waiting to be interviewed and having the people doing the make-up say, “My husband”—or, “My son,” or, “My father,”—“suffers from mental health problems. Thank you.” Then we would go through to the next level and meet the producer, who would quietly say, “I’ve suffered from mental health problems for a number of years. Thank you for giving me a voice.” Then there would be the woman or the gentleman doing the interview, who would say, “My child has mental health problems. Thank you for giving him”—or her—“a voice.”

For years we felt that the media were not on our page. I think, in fact, the media were on our page, but did not know what to do because, mistakenly, they felt that the public were frightened about people with mental health problems. The media played up to that fear in the headlines, everybody nervously laughing along to the ridicule that was directed towards people suffering with an illness. I think the press now realise that many of their readers and viewers were made deeply uncomfortable by that approach, and that for the last 20 years they got it wrong. What we are seeing is a sea change in the reporting of mental health problems. There is still some distance to go, but things are improving, and they are improving quickly.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is doing today and what he is going to do over the next few months will probably be his most important achievement in political life. He will find it difficult to make more of a difference than he is going to make over the course of this year and the beginning of next. I am sure he will go on to hold great office—no doubt he will be a Secretary of State and perhaps go beyond—but what he is now doing is so important that it is unlikely that he will ever be able to top it.

I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Chamber today, because they are at the forefront of changing views and changing minds. They are to be celebrated, both in this House and in their constituencies. The two hon. Friends on either side of me today—my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Bracknell (Dr Lee)—spoke movingly and openly about their experiences, and when they did so, they had been in this House for little more than two years. I would not have had the bravery to do that after two years in this House, so I say this to them. I salute you for your honesty and integrity. No doubt your constituents recognise what you did that day in June.

I am going on a little and I did not want to go on too much, so I shall bring my few words to an end. I would like first, however, to pay tribute to Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. I have known him for about two and a half years now, and his energy, enthusiasm and dynamism are incredible. Indeed, I think I do my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central no disservice by saying that if it were not for Lord Stevenson’s enthusiasm for this Bill and his sheer determination, I doubt we would be here today. I would also like to thank—without naming them—the many civil servants who have promoted the Bill in their Departments. They, too, are to be lauded for their contribution.

That is really all I have to say. There are other discriminations out there that people with mental health problems continue to face—for example, a lack of advocacy when they are in crisis. That needs to be addressed. How we look after people in detention and the rights we give people in detention also need to be looked at. Then there are Criminal Records Bureau disclosures, where, under the question: “Is there any other relevant information?”, chief constables will too often write, “We are aware that this individual was detained under the Mental Health Act, but we don’t know whether they are a danger to children or adults. We don’t believe that they are.” All too often that is damning to the individual, so we need to look at that, too.

In the main, however, today is a day of celebration. It is a great day, and I am just so pleased to serve in such a wonderful national Parliament. We are rightly proud—and have the right to be proud—of what we are doing today. It is fabulous to be here. It is possibly the greatest day of my life. My wife and my three children may take exception to that, but it is certainly one of the greatest days of my life. Finally, I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. You are doing a fabulous thing. Thank you so much for taking this Bill forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important point. She is entirely right. It is a question not just of removing legislative barriers, but of encouraging a change in culture. Owing to a lack of understanding, frankly, far too many businesses and organisations still display that outdated and unfortunate response to those with mental health conditions.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Good practice needs to be recognised, and I am pleased to report that next week Legal and General is hosting a major conference in the City about mental health and tackling stigma. I believe that the company should be congratulated for doing that, particularly in the City, where there is a sort of macho culture in which people deny any weakness in case their colleagues think the worse of them.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The equation of mental health problems with weakness is something we must destroy utterly. We all know about that culture in the City, and it exists elsewhere. Organisations such as Legal and General and Swindon’s Mindful Employer network, an excellent organisation that brings together companies large and small in my constituency to encourage and share best practice with regard to employees with stress or mental health and other related conditions, can demonstrate the way to go when it comes to dealing with these conditions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend brings a great hero of mine to our attention: Field Marshal the Viscount Slim, leader of the forgotten army, a man who led an outstandingly courageous operation in the far east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that huge experience to bear in this debate, which allows me to make an important point. We must be very careful when we use words such as “vulnerable”, because many people I know who have mental health conditions—I am sure other Members of the House know such people—would not like to be described as vulnerable. Often they are very tough people indeed who have gone through the toughest of circumstances.

I make that point because a good-natured and well-intentioned approach that describes people with mental health conditions as vulnerable brings with it a danger that the vulnerability becomes the basis by which, rather than encouraging and enabling such people to engage fully in society and public life, we assume that they need to be looked after in a different way and separated from mainstream society. Such a view is only a short step away from the old thinking about institutionalisation—the thinking of previous generations, which did so much harm and damage to people with mental health conditions. Although it is undeniable that people with disabilities or mental health conditions can find themselves in vulnerable situations, that is very different from making glib assumptions about their vulnerability.

The Bill would be a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, it would also reduce and repeal legislation—something that I, as a Conservative, am always happy to support. In three particular respects it deals with provisions that are not only discriminatory, but wholly superfluous. The provision relating to Members of Parliament, as has already been noted, is not only dangerous, with the additional vice of potentially driving hon. Members to deny mental health problems, but in the light of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows for a person lacking capacity to be detained without losing their seat, section 141 is utterly redundant. On the principle that redundant legislation is bad law, we as legislators should act swiftly to remove such a provision.

It has been reported today that people with stressful jobs in which the ability to control events is limited—I most definitely include being a Member of Parliament in that category—are at a 23% greater risk of having a heart attack. We really would be idiots in this place if we denied the possibility that the mental health of hon. Members is not invulnerable. In my opinion the 2005 Act caters well for cases in which, sadly, detention for mental health reasons is the only alternative available but, importantly, it does not allow the automatic vacation of a seat because of the fact of a mental health condition. That is the important distinction that we must draw between the mere fact of a condition and the question of capacity. The two things are very different.

As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had more than my fair share of experience of dealing with the great British jury, to quote the words of W. S. Gilbert, whether I have been sitting as a Crown court recorder or appearing as counsel in criminal cases. I say with all the experience that I can muster that the court system is perfectly capable of catering for and dealing with people with conditions—sometimes lifelong ones—that can be managed by the administration of medication.

When somebody with diabetes, or another type of physical condition managed by regular medication, comes to the court, the well adopted practice is for sittings and administrative arrangements to be adjusted so that the person’s needs can be accommodated, they can take their medication and can serve as a juror. In other words, no assumption is made that, just because a potential juror has a physical condition or disability, they cannot serve as a juror.

The assumption in the Juries Act 1974 about mental health is wholly wrong. The blanket ban serves not only to reinforce stigma, but devalues the contribution that people with mental health conditions make to society and can make as jurors. In my humble opinion, there is no more important public service for an individual than to serve on a jury in judgment over their fellow citizen. To drive underground necessary disclosure of some mental health conditions that could affect the capacity to serve is, in my view, what is happening now—inevitably, as result of the outdated provisions in the 1974 Act. That is why those provisions must go and why I particularly welcome the Bill.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I take my hon. Friend back to his earlier comment that on occasions he felt a victim of events in this place? Today, with this excellent speech, as on so many other days, he is driving events and is to congratulated for it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a friend indeed.

I turn to the final provision, which relates to company directors. The proposed removal of the provisions in the schedules to the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 has the function of removing not only discriminatory provisions but unnecessary ones. Why is that? It is because the model articles themselves already contain provision for the termination of a director’s appointment if a registered GP is of the opinion that that person has become physically or mentally incapable as a director and may be so for more than three months.

The provisions are a complete waste of time. They need to be removed for the sake of simplicity. Frankly, this is another example of removing unnecessary red tape and burdens when it comes to the setting up and creation of a business. From a practical point of view, the removal is effective and necessary. Let me also deal briefly with the existing provisions on orders made by the Court of Protection. Those orders are based on a lack of mental capacity, not the mere fact of a mental health condition.

I have mentioned that difference before, and I will say it again—I will keep saying it until everybody understands. Having a mental health condition does not mean that someone cannot play their full part in our society. That is why I warmly welcome the Bill as a real step forward, on a day of honour for the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is correct and I certainly recognise that work. Today is a day for recognising the work of successive Governments in many spheres of policy and human sympathy.

Turning back to today’s debate, tackling stigma and discrimination is at the heart of the Government’s mental health strategy. I join all Members here today, who have said many times that it cannot be right in the 21st century for somebody to be automatically expelled from this place because they have had a mental health illness. That sends out entirely the wrong message: that if one has mental health problems, one’s contribution is not welcome in public life. That has applied not only to the House of Commons, but to juries and directorships. In February last year, the Government announced that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. This Bill is that vehicle, and we are glad to see that issue linked to similar amendments on company directors and jurors.

This issue goes well beyond the business of government and opposition. Shifting public attitudes and behaviour requires a major and substantial social movement. The Government are doing their bit within that. February last year saw the publication of the Government’s strategy on mental health entitled, “No health without mental health”. The strategy recognised that mental health is central to our quality of life and to our economic success, individually and collectively. It is interdependent with the success that any Government might hope for in improving training, education and employment, and in tackling the persistent problems that scar our society, from homelessness through to violence, substance abuse and other forms of crime.

The title of the strategy, “No health without mental health”, captures our ambition to mainstream mental health in this country. That concept has been referred to many times today. The Government expect parity of esteem between physical and mental health services. I know, from the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, that the Opposition also want that.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I mentioned a few moments ago that Legal and General is doing good work to address stigma. No doubt, as a former Treasury Minister, my hon. Friend will welcome that. Will she ensure that her colleagues in government work with employers to promote the agenda of “No health without mental health” and to celebrate those who take a lead?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is, once more, absolutely correct. In this arena, as in so many others, it is vital for the Government to work with the private sector, the voluntary sector and anybody in any capacity to achieve our aims. We are talking about broad-scale cultural change. We need the private sector, whether in a macho or non-macho environment, to stand up and say that it cares about mental health and wants people to be well supported. I want that to happen in all walks of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to encourage cultural change across a number of organisations. I hope she will forgive me for not responding to that example, because I was not there to see it, but we need to ensure that such stigmatisation is not possible, is not the done thing and is frowned on whenever it is seen or experienced. We need to stand up and speak up for that view, and whenever we can we need to frown on that stigma from a front row seat. One of the six objectives in the mental health strategy was exactly that—that fewer people will experience stigma and discrimination. As the House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central set out, the strategy has the full backing and endorsement of the whole Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has a long record of calling for the reform of mental health policy.

For negative attitudes and behaviour towards people with mental health issues to decrease, we need to improve public understanding of those issues and gain more sympathetic treatment of them in our mainstream media. Again, I refer to the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne did in June, has done since and will do in future.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for the work that he has done. He has spoken passionately and often on these proposals, and he said in an interview with politics.co.uk in June 2009:

“Mental ill-health is still very much a taboo subject in Parliament as well as the work place and this must change. Mental ill-health affects as many as one in four of the working age population and it is crucial that Parliament leads the way in promoting a better understanding of mental health.”

That is still pertinent today, notwithstanding the steps that we are taking to ensure that the mental health taboo is well and truly broken. Momentum has been building behind the measures in the Bill for some time, as many hon. Members have shown in their comments today and their actions over time both inside and outside the House.

[Mr Charles Walker]

It is not for me to interfere in matters for the Government and Public Bill Committees, but may I make a plea that when the Bill goes into Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) is the Whip in charge? She has been a stalwart of the all-party mental health group, and we are sad to lose her to the Whips Office. I know that she will go on to do great things there and elsewhere, but we would like to see her again on occasion.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend’s attitude to the Whips Office is well documented and understood in the House. I pay tribute to him for his independence of spirit and his tenacity in pursuing not only mental health issues but a range of others, and for turning his face against the establishment whenever possible. If I may be so cheeky, I endorse his request for that particular member of the Whips Office to be on the Committee. It may be well without my powers to do so—I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or powers greater than any of us, will advise me about that shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has campaigned tirelessly on the matter and deserves recognition for doing so.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My short answer is that I was not disappointed.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I will give way in a moment.

If the Lords amendments were accepted, the electorate would have no certainty as to how long the Parliament that they will elect on 7 May 2015 would last. Such certainty, and the principle behind the Bill, have been welcomed by many electoral administrators and by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

[Mr Walker]

Will the Minister tell the House where that desire for public certainty in relation to a five-year Parliament comes from? Does he think that there would be huge upset in 2015 if people were suddenly to discover that the Parliament might run for only four years—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could let us know which part of the amendment he is referring to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shepherd]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

My comments seem to have provoked interest. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I would not characterise the relationship like that at all. A good case was made, and on this particular issue the Prime Minister has demonstrated tremendous leadership. He is the first Prime Minister to give up the power—a power that was his personally—to seek a Dissolution from Her Majesty the Queen. That improves our arrangements, because we now know the date of the election and so for the last year of this Parliament we will not have the “will he, won’t he” proposition, where everyone is trying to second-guess when the election will be and people are arguing about when the best time is for the party or parties in government. That is an incredibly powerful step forward and it is very welcome.

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I promised earlier to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Walker]

The current system has served us pretty well for 350 years. The Minister cites other Parliaments around the world that have been established for perhaps 20 or 30 years at best. Perhaps they would be best advised to follow our example, as opposed to our following their example.

[Mr Harper]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not believe that the general public support the exercise that we go through in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, where we enter the “will he, won’t he” argument. We all know—this came out clearly in the debate in the other place from some who had been close to these decisions—that the decision that is taken, perfectly honourably, is about how best the Prime Minister can choose the date to maximise the chance of their party being re-elected. I simply do not think that that is a good basis on which the decision should be made, and I think that our approach is an improvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not accept that, because the experience over the rather sad course of this Bill has been that there has been no consultation with the Opposition about a major constitutional change. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said earlier that the system has lasted for 300 years, but I do not think it has been a good system or that it has been perfect for the British constitution, because it has on occasion allowed too much power for a Prime Minister to call a general election at his or her—well, very rarely at her—convenience. In that regard, it is better that we should proceed in a different direction. For us the key issue is whether a term should be four or five years.

[Mr Charles Walker]

No system is perfect, but we have had a fairly dynamic democracy over the past 350 years and by fixing parliamentary terms we will lose some of that dynamism.

[Chris Bryant]

I have sympathy with that argument, but I also think that this is one of the changes towards a fixed-term Parliament that would assist in that and would be another part of the steady progress of parliamentary evolution to which he referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shepherd]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no way that I was going to rise to that fly. We will get back to the substance of the matter.

These are ridiculous proposals from the House of Lords—on that I agree. To that extent I am with the body of the House, which, I hope, feels that this is almost an impertinence. That impertinence is qualified, of course, by the fact that the Lords are the second Chamber, and that as it stands—other than in matters of money, as I understand it—they have all the rights of a second Chamber to make or change legislation. They are wrong to table the amendment, but they are right in the spirit of it. I hope that it is in order to suggest such a thing. My proposition is that they are right in the spirit of it because it is the only way in which they can attack this matter.

I hope that this cheerful Chamber will look askance at the Minister and his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House, who are sitting on the Front Bench and trying to seduce us into thinking that there is some immaculate constitutional conception behind the Bill. There is not. It is the raw politics of “We want to be there for five years, in the hope that something turns up at the end of the fifth year”. That is what it is about, and we know it. I urge the House to vote for the Lords amendment, and damn them.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Fixed-term Parliaments: constitutional vandalism.

[Mr Cash]

This was not in our manifesto. The people who voted for us certainly did not vote for fixed-term Parliaments.

In 1940, as I have said, the Government won the vote in May, but the public would not countenance that Government remaining in power for another day. That was what got rid of Neville Chamberlain, and Leo Amery said:

“In the name of God, go.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As one of the youngest Members of the 2010 intake, I remember sitting in the Members’ centre a few days after my election and listening to a young lady—much younger than me, surprisingly—who was speaking on the telephone and trying very hard to arrange accommodation for herself in London. She happened to be a member of the Opposition. Each time she spoke with an estate agent, it was clear that she could not do it, and after two hours she gave up. I quickly soused that—

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Sussed. You souse a herring.

[Bob Stewart]

Souse a herring—are we not moving on to that debate in a moment?

I quickly sussed that the expenses system was not working very well. I have spent most of my adult life in public service, but I have also been in business in the private sector. In those jobs, there was a very clear principle that if one spent money doing one’s job, one should be properly recompensed. It was simple and effective. It seems to me that IPSA makes difficulties when it should not do so. I am lucky, because my constituency is close to Westminster and I can travel home each night—22 minutes from Victoria station to Shortlands—except when we have an absurdly lengthy, late-night sitting, when I am told I am allowed to go to a hotel. Members should rest assured that on such occasions I do not cost the taxpayer any money, because I get out my army camp bed and kip in my office, illegally. It is a damn sight easier that trying to check into a hotel at 12.30 at night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Yes; I have said that several times and it is important. Although this House has many new Members, it is important that we remember why we got to this position. We have to ensure that we move things forward, and focus on independence and transparency. We have had debates recently on our pay, and the consideration of our pay will be moved across to IPSA in the not-too-distant future. Its independence is important so that people have confidence. The Committee, when it is set up, will have to remember that the recommendations it makes about the scheme and the operation of the scheme will be made to IPSA.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Does the Minister accept that when we legislate in haste, as we did in 2009, such legislation sometimes has to be revisited and amended with the benefit of hindsight?

[Mr Harper]

I made a distinction in my remarks. Clearly, if the Committee, or indeed the National Audit Office, makes recommendations about value for money and cost-effectiveness in the way IPSA operates, IPSA will pay attention to them, as with all its recommendations. It may be that the Committee makes recommendations about legislative change. However, we do not want to go back to a system in which the Government—heaven forbid—or the House start to micro-manage the details of the scheme. We have an independent system with transparency, and it is important that we stick with that. The Committee needs to bear that in mind. There will be two important audiences for what the Committee recommends. In the same way that we should not legislate in haste, we should not re-legislate in haste and change things further. The Committee needs to bear that in mind when it considers this matter, and should not immediately leap to the conclusion that we have to change the entire structure of the system.