European Council

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

In the interests of time and the fact that many people want to get in, I shall say to my noble friend Lord Spicer what I said to my noble friend Lord Lawson. The Prime Minister has secured, for the first time ever, a return of powers to a nation state. That has never happened before. He has secured that and we can now take advantage of it—something that we have never been able to do before.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, last week at the Munich security conference the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, expressed the hope of having a strong United Kingdom within a strong European Union. In the opinion of the noble Baroness, why should the United States attach such significance to our continuing membership of the EU?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It does so because it sees how influential we are in the European Union. It sees that we not only have an impact on the very important international and global issues of the day but bring a lot to what happens in the rest of the European Union. That is why the US wants us to stay.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those in the Scottish National party must remember that that was indeed the result.

Some concerns have been expressed about the timetable for the Smith commission, but we cannot win on that one. It will be seen either as far too short and too urgent, or as being kicked into the long grass and not being treated urgently enough. Lord Smith has a huge challenge on his plate, but I and my colleagues, including the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), are committed to ensuring that his job is made as easy as possible, so that we can get this new settlement.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the constitutional convention embraced the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, civic society and trade unions but that, for reasons of its own, the Scottish National party declined to join it? It is worth remembering that we now have a Scottish Parliament as a direct result of the efforts of John Smith, Donald Dewar and now Lord Steel of Aikwood, as well as the efforts of the many others who, after the failed referendum of 1979, kept the faith.

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend rightly points to the history of engagement by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, later on, the Conservatives. Now, we must hope that the SNP will engage in the process in the right spirit. The interventions from SNP Members this afternoon seem to being going against the spirit of welcoming the Smith commission; they seem to have prejudged it and decided that it will not work. I believe that John Swinney and Linda Fabiani will enter into the work of the commission in the right spirit to ensure that we can reach common ground; I hope that that is the correct judgment to make. It is the responsibility of all participants to create a package that will meet the ambitious aspirations of the people of Scotland, that will maximise the common ground between the political parties and those not of any party, and that will prove stable for Scotland and the UK more widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I have the advantage of having heard the most perceptive and well-reasoned speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), the former Secretary of State. Much of what he said I would have sought to say at this stage of the debate, but there is no need.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said that the rights of Members to vote could be resolved by recourse to the Standing Orders. I was elected to this Parliament on the basis of the privileges and rights that my constituents believed I would continue to enjoy as long as I was a Member. If those rights or privileges are taken away by Standing Orders, not just I, but the constituents who voted for me on a particular basis will be affected.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

No, I am going to make some progress.

I had the advantage, if that is the right way to put it, of hearing the First Minister this morning on the radio. To say that he was concerned about the timetable being properly met would be something of an understatement, but his response to questioning, and some of the contributions by the SNP in the Chamber today, have left me, perhaps erroneously and perhaps unfortunately, with the perception that, if the timetable were not met, they would regard that as a considerable political advantage.

I have believed for a considerable time that the present constitutional settlement in the UK is unsustainable. That is why I was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland to chair what came perhaps a little unfairly to be called the Campbell commission. I chaired it. I did not write its report; other people did. However, I have had some false regard as a consequence.

Throughout that exercise, it was clear to me, and it is set out in the document that we produced—unhappily, it is not available in all good bookshops, although it can be found on the Scottish Liberal Democrats website—that federalism was the answer to quite a lot of the issues that were on our minds then. Nothing has caused me to alter my view that that is still the case.

There is one point I want to make as strongly as I can. We cannot all get what we want as a result of Lord Smith’s commission or the Cabinet Committee that will be chaired by the Leader of the House. There will have to be compromises that as far as possible take account of the competing interests. There is the question of the role of Scottish MPs when issues such as health and education are discussed here. I have felt slightly uncomfortable about that since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, but the fact is that, as I have already described, we came here on a particular basis. If that is to be changed, it will be a profound constitutional change; it is not one to be embraced simply by changing the Standing Orders. Therefore, that should be thought about, rather than there being a knee-jerk reaction to the result on 18 September.

The vow has been made. If the First Minister thinks that he will be holding the feet of the three leaders to the fire, he ain’t seen nothing yet. I will be holding their feet to the fire, as it would be —let me put it as mildly as I can—politically unhelpful next May were that promise not to have been implemented to the extent that has been set out.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My constituents see the Labour party as having acted in self-interest by refusing to put right the West Lothian question, and since 2010 perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party’s self-interest has been in play in the coalition. There is genuine anger at this inequality, and hitting it into the long grass will no longer do. People will not trust that we are going to act if we do not act soon.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am not suggesting we hit it into the long grass. All I am suggesting is that, before we make a change of such a profound nature, we give careful consideration. We should remember the theory of unintended consequences: there is hardly ever an Act of the kind we are talking about that does not produce a consequence that was never intended. Although in the past I have rehearsed, perhaps rather glibly, the view that as devolved powers were given to Northern Ireland and Wales and Scotland, it would be increasingly difficult for Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on, say, health and education—and I do not detract in any way from that—the argument put by my constituency neighbour in Fife, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was a substantial one and one that will have to be considered by the Cabinet Committee that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is to deal with.

Along with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), I am one of the few survivors of all three referendums—those of 1979, 1998 and now 2014. Perhaps I am over-sensitive, but I feel a great sense of resentment and reject the notion that I am less of a Scot and less of a patriot because in the course of the last referendum I argued as strongly and persuasively as I could for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. If anyone thinks that has gone away they should read the letters columns of Scottish newspapers, in which people like me are accused of being either frightened, old or not patriotic. I may be one of those, but I am certainly not all three, and I regard it as deeply offensive. If the Scottish National party wants to make a proper contribution to what we now have on our agenda, one of the most powerful ways it could do so would be by condemning utterly the efforts to talk down those of us who felt that the Union was so important that only a no vote would do.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I have not engaged myself in the organisation of the House as much as many of those who have already spoken. As I look around the Chamber, I am slightly surprised to see that I am the only Member representing a Scottish constituency who is present. There is a serious point to that, because if a decision is taken on 18 September that Scotland should seek independence—

[Mr Straw]

Separation.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Separation, if you like. If that happens, the next 18 months and indeed for a long time after, it is going to be enormously testing of every procedure of this House. The volume of legislation will be enormous, and the number of occasions on which the Speaker, and indeed the House—and Front Benchers too—will require expert advice will also be enormous. On that basis, I, at least, am surprised that when it came to this appointment, an acquaintance with parliamentary procedure was thought to be sufficient. In my view, a detailed knowledge of it is essential.

I have some sympathy with those who wish to divide the role into two, but I am concerned—more so than the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)—about the possibilities, indeed the problems, that might be created by two co-equals. What happens if there is a genuine dispute? Is the Speaker to be drawn in as some kind of arbiter? What will be the chain of responsibility? Who will answer to whom? That is why, when the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was talking about a chief operating officer, I was rather disappointed that the idea was so readily dismissed in some parts of the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will give it serious consideration .

It should also be remembered that the Clerk of the House is a key part of the constitution of the United Kingdom. If that were not so, the appointment would not be made by the monarch.

[Mr Hain]

I entirely agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said about the Clerk’s constitutional role. That is a matter of fact, and I am not suggesting that we challenge it. However, I also think that there should be a separate chief executive role. I do not see why there should not be two senior figures, who will behave as senior figures do, as in any other organisation. Finance directors may disagree with chief executives, but they find a solution, and we could expect the same from those who will take these two roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

But a chief executive has overall responsibility, and the finance director is below him. I do not have a great deal of experience of commerce or business, but the experience that I do have demonstrates clearly to me that, in the example given by the right hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt about who would have to give way. I simply do not believe that it is right, having regard to the controversy that has surrounded this matter up to now, for us to have a system that allows for further controversy in the future.

Let us return, very quickly, to the question of constitutional importance. I think that it is significant. That is why, in my mind, the primacy of the Clerk as the senior person ought to be preserved, and that is why I think that the suggestion of a chief operating officer makes a great deal of sense.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that the sooner these issues are resolved, the better. That is why I expressed disappointment about the fact that more Members with Scottish constituencies were not present. The length of time allowed to the right hon. Member for Blackburn is extremely short. When a special Select Committee was established to consider the right of the police to enter these premises, I, as Chairman, had to ask for an extension, but the right hon. Gentleman will not have that luxury. I think that we should all be conscious of the fact that we are imposing a considerable burden.

[Mr Blunkett]

rose—

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The right hon. Gentleman was a member of that special Select Committee, so I will give way to him.

[Mr Blunkett]

And a very good Chair the right hon. and learned Gentleman was—but we understood, did we not, as we dealt with those issues, how crucial it was to have someone who had real oversight and managerial experience.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I do not want to reopen the question of the Serjeant at Arms, which formed a substantial part of that Committee’s consideration. I simply say that we need a chain of command that is clear and unambiguous, because anything other than that is likely to lead to controversy of the kind that we have thus far unnecessarily embraced because of the way in which this matter has been dealt with.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms Mills, who finds herself to be the subject of such controversy. However, I was powerfully affected by the observation made a moment ago that, had people understood that a chief executive-type person was to be appointed, many more people with those skills might have applied. If we have either separation or, as I prefer, a chief operating officer, it may be very interesting to see the extent to which the volume and nature of candidates is different from what it was in the first instance.

Parliamentary Standards

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman illustrates the nature of the misunderstanding. There is nothing in recent reported cases that implies directly a criticism of IPSA, as they do not relate to expenses since May 2010. If there are issues relating to IPSA, we should look at them in that context, and not judge IPSA by reference to cases that occurred before May 2010.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

In considering an alternative system, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to take proper account of what parliamentary privilege amounts to? Essentially, it is to the effect that nothing said or done in this House can be relied on in any court outside this House. A report by a commissioner to a Committee is part of the proceedings of the House and is therefore covered by privilege. If, on the other hand, it is decided to establish an alternative form, which involves a statute and the creation of a statutory body, that body would be susceptible to any legal action and probably—we can imagine that many cases would be—subject to judicial review, thereby bringing an issue of this kind not only into the public domain but into the responsibility of the civil courts of this country.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not a lawyer and I bow to the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend. I think he is absolutely right about that. From my point of view, it is a very practical question. Let me repeat: if we were in a position in which the commissioner, constituted not as part of the role of the Select Committee and under the Standing Orders of this House but separately, were trying to effect investigations in a similar way while being open to legal and procedural challenges, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend, his job would be made much harder.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I have nothing to add to what I have just said, apart from this: there will be business questions on Thursday, and at that point I hope to be able to tell the House more about the Government’s proposals.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend have any sense of optimism that, following the announcement he has just made, the Labour party will at last tell us how many days it wants?

[Sir George Young]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I am ever optimistic, but, as he will have noticed during the exchanges yesterday, despite repeated requests, the Opposition were never able to put a figure on the number of days that they would have found adequate.

Code of Conduct

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech. He is a hard-working member of the Committee, as well as a member of other Committees that look into standards in public life. He is well worth listening to.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I apologise for not being in my place for the start of the debate; I was rather taken aback by the speed of previous proceedings. Let me try to put it this way. Building on what the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, would he accept that the purpose of paragraph 16A is to create a presumption against investigation of private life unless the Committee determines in its judgment that such an investigation should take place?

[Mr Barron]

Yes, I understand that point, but I fear that the intention could be misinterpreted. I fully understand the issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, and I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne will tell us about the amendment in more detail. If it is withdrawn, it will be perfectly possible to return to the issue when the revised guide to the rules comes before us in the not-too-distant future. That revision to the guide will be more detailed than what appears in the current three-page code of conduct, which is out for consultation. If the Committee itself has not proposed that the commission should consult before opening an inquiry into personal and private matters, the House could insert such a provision, but I feel that the provision would be more helpful in the guidance than in a code of conduct that tends to contradict elements of it.

The other important clarification is the introduction of a new paragraph 15 making it clear that Members are personally responsible for the extent to which their use of expenses and allowances accords with the rules. Clearly there is nothing new in that. The current Members’ handbook warns Members that the facilities and services of the House are provided to assist Members in their parliamentary work and should be used appropriately.

Defining parliamentary purposes is, of course, not easy. Members’ roles are various, and we are, with very rare exceptions, elected as party candidates and uphold our parties in Parliament. That is very different from using public funding for party campaigning, or to support party organisations. Having considered the definition extremely carefully, the Committee recommends that the rules make it clear that public money should not be used to

“confer undue advantage on a political organisation”.

Most of the other changes consist of clarifications and re-ordering to make the code more coherent. One change that has attracted some comment is the proposal to remove paragraph 12 of the code, which refers to the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials. We suggest that it should be included in a new paragraph 13, which would also cover the declaration and registration of interests in the House. That would make it clear that Members should

“always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”

That is a clarification rather than a substantive change. Its roots lie in one of the more painful cases that the Committee has had to consider: the so-called Lobbygate, in which Members were drawn into discussing jobs that they might undertake after they had left the House. One of the cases arising from that involved the failure of my good friend Mr Richard Caborn to declare an interest in a meeting with the chairman of a health authority. At the time, it was argued that the rules governing declaration did not cover such cases, as the person concerned was not a Minister or a civil servant. Our judgment was that the spirit of the rules was clear: their purpose was to ensure that Members were transparent in their dealings with people who might be in a position to influence public policy or the spending of public money. However, we believed that the rules could be better expressed, and these changes achieve that.

One of the great sadnesses involved in dealing with standards cases is that we must deal with what comes before us. The Committee cannot simply refuse to look into a matter because it was a case of entrapment or a single transgression in a distinguished career, and there are a limited number of sanctions that it can recommend to the House. It is a mark of the respect and affection in which Richard Caborn is held that extremely senior people have asked the Committee to reconsider his case. We have considered the matter carefully on more than one occasion, but ultimately we decided that we had considered the rules carefully at the time of our original finding.

It may help, however, if I discuss some of the matters that were set out clearly in the original report and debate. The commissioner and the Committee agreed that the breach of the rules was inadvertent. As I said at the time, the penalty that we proposed was

“intended to be light, because we recognised that Mr Caborn did not intend to breach the rules or to bring the House or its Members generally into disrepute.”

An inadvertent slip should not obscure Mr Caborn’s long record of distinguished public service, and I hope that it does not do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I welcome the chance to intervene briefly in this interesting debate, and I commend the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) for his speech in moving the motion and for his work on the Committee on Standards and Privileges during his time as Chair, including his work in producing the two reports we are considering today. The House will have noted what he said in response to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

I also commend the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, for his work as commissioner. His term of office concludes at the end of this year, and it is possible that this will be the last debate on the work of his office, in general terms, during it. He has faced a work load that neither he nor anyone else could have foreseen when he was first appointed, he has discharged his responsibilities conscientiously and effectively and been a source of wisdom and good sense for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its successive Chairs. I say that with added conviction as the Chair at the time of his appointment.

The review of the code that the commissioner has carried out reflects the experience he has gathered during his term. The overwhelming majority of the changes he has proposed represent sensible changes, improving the clarity and structure of the code without affecting its overall scope and meaning. In particular, the changes help to distinguish the aspirational parts of the code from the adjudicable part.

I want briefly to touch on four areas that have attracted particular interest, namely the application of the code to hon. Members’ private lives, the code in relation to constituency responsibilities, personal responsibility for the use of resources, and the principle of equal application to all hon. Members.

On the first matter, the commissioner, the Committee and the House have wrestled, and are wrestling, with the vexed issue of how far the code applies to hon. Members’ private lives, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others. In my submission to the review, which has already been quoted, I said that the distinction between private and public lives was

“important, even if it is not always clear”.

I noted that an extension to private lives might lead to an infringement of human rights, a point also made in the submission by the chair of Standards for England.

I further pointed out that any such extension

“could also be used to justify intrusive and prurient media interest in Members’ private lives, on the basis that if the House chooses to concern itself with Members’ personal lives—however sparingly—then there should be no limits to the media doing likewise”.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the code must be read as a whole. Has he had time to look at paragraph 18, which provides:

“The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code”

and the following sentence, which states:

“Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House”?

If the investigation is into private life, that necessarily means that if a Member refused to answer a question on his or her private life, he or she could be regarded as breaching that part of the code.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Once an inquiry has been started by the commissioner, Members are obliged to co-operate and if they do not, they will face consequences from the Committee on Standards. That paragraph would then kick in.

The commissioner has concluded that being an hon. Member is a way of life. As he put it, an hon. Member

“is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”

I personally paused at the assertion that I am never off duty, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and other colleagues might have had the same reaction. I think that there are times when I am off duty. The commissioner’s conclusion is that an hon. Member’s conduct in both their private and wider public lives is excluded from the provisions of the code

“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.

This is a very high hurdle for investigation, and that approach was endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The amendment, if the subject of a complaint related only to the conduct of a Member in his or her private and personal life, would have the effect of providing that it could not be investigated. I am confident that the Members who have proposed the amendment have no wish to argue that Members should be subject to special treatment that is not available to others. The issue at stake is simply whether there would ever be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the commissioner to undertake an investigation into a matter that did not intersect at all with an hon. Member’s conduct in his or her public capacity. That is a matter for the House and each hon. Member to consider and it is not an issue on which it is appropriate for the Government to take a collective view, although I am personally sympathetic to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.

The House will also want to reflect on the offer made by the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee to take the House’s concern and address it in the revised guide, which, as I understand it, would leave the code unamended and insert an additional step in the process, in that the Committee would have to agree to the commissioner conducting an inquiry in this particular domain. I am sure that the House will welcome those offers and will want to reflect on them.

Another potential matter of contention is the application of the code to constituency matters. In his memorandum, the commissioner makes it clear that the way an hon. Member handles constituency business should not be adjudicable by the commissioner, and I agree. He suggests that the House would only wish to consider an instance that was

“so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House”.

I agree that it is very hard indeed to envisage these criteria being met.

On the third issue, in my submission to the review I supported proposals for redrafting the code in line with recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life

“so that the House has a clear basis to take action against any Member who has abused the IPSA scheme”.

The commissioner proposed to do that by means of a provision that stated that the use of public resources may not confer a political benefit. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has suggested a change, arising from its observation that it is unrealistic to expect that parliamentary activities legitimately funded from the political purse might never confer an indirect political benefit. The new code rightly makes it clear that Members should be clear that the use of public resources must always be in support of their parliamentary duties and should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. I agree that that formulation is in line with the original proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used the phrase “undue advantage”.

Finally, the commissioner considered and rejected a number of proposals that would involve separate rules for hon. Members who were former Ministers or who were Opposition Front Benchers. He did so on the basis of the principle that

“the Code should apply equally to all Members”.

That is a principle that I wholeheartedly support.

The second motion, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, is more straightforward. It seeks the approval of the twenty-first report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which recommends extending the scope of registration to individual staff of all-party groups who hold passes and to transfer the onus of registration from the registered contact of the group to the staff member him or herself. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House stated in the debate on all-party groups on 7 February last year, all-party groups can play a valuable role provided they are transparent. That measure seems sensible and does not represent an abdication of responsibility by hon. Members who are officers of all-party groups. Instead, it reflects the proper situation whereby individuals who have the benefits of being a pass holder in this place should personally accept the responsibilities that flow from that.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the House coming to a decision on these vexed matters.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Let me make it clear that I support the motion and the thinking that lies behind it, but what will be the role of the trustees between now and 2015, and what will it be after 2015? Will they have any fiduciary responsibility for the new scheme, or will their responsibility be limited to the current scheme?

[Sir George Young]

The trustees will continue to administer the scheme. The chairman of the trustees might want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. Under our changes, the rules that govern the scheme will no longer be made by the Government or the House; they will be made independently by IPSA. After the process of transfer on 1 April next year, the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees until such time as IPSA makes any change. If it wants to make changes, it must consult the trustees. The motion indicates that the first change should be an increase in the contribution rate. It then suggests that, along with other public sector schemes, a new scheme, perhaps moving from final salary, should be introduced by 2015, but the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees, and I pay tribute to the work they do.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps my hon. Friend does not recall the exchange between me and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who is no longer in his place. I explicitly said that we would expect and hope that the Liberal Democrat party would offer a fresh name in the coming days.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

That is inconsistent.

[John Mann]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says that that is inconsistent, but there is no requirement for those proposing an amendment to agree on every remedy that would emanate from it.

My purpose is not to make any comment on individual Members but to ensure that because there is a balance between the other place and this place the Government take the issue back and rethink the entire make-up of the Committee in order properly to reflect the Parliament that we have, the elections we have had and the modern world we live in. I seek no more than that, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who has added his name to the amendment, may have other, additional and different reasons. That does not negate the argument; indeed, one could argue that in a democracy it strengthens the case because there are different arguments from different perspectives with different options provided. The principle remains the same, however: it is invidious to have a balance of 4:2, four from the Government side and two from all the combined Opposition parties. However one looks at it, that in no way reflects the result of the last election.

It seems to me rather demeaning for this Parliament to go into such a long summer recess with this Committee apparently sitting through it with such imbalance and such bias. This question of priority and of why the Committee is sitting through the summer is another reason why the amendment has been tabled. If the amendment was passed, one would hope that the Government would be forced to rethink at this late stage. They chose not to table the debate earlier, although they had the opportunity to do so, but one would hope that the time for reflection they would have over the recess would also mean that the proposal for this biased and unrepresentative group, in relation to the general election, to Parliament as a whole, to the nations of the United Kingdom, to the gender balance in the House, to democracy and to the world in which we live, could not happen. It seems to me a wrong priority in the month of August, when there are many important things that we could be deliberating and engaging on, for this Joint Committee to be establishing its work. A slight delay allowing the Government to rethink, reformulate and re-democratise the proposal would be wholly in order. I am sure that in their heart of hearts that is exactly what hon. Members are thinking tonight, having heard the arguments that have been put forward. No hon. Member would want to go into this long recess having taken a decision so unrepresentative of our country, our Parliament and the world in which we live.

There is another fundamental issue at stake that has not yet been addressed, which the amendment would also allow reconsideration of—the giving away of financial control and powers to the other place. Important debates and deliberations on the future of the other place are currently going on, such as whether it should be partially elected—80% elected—how many should sit in it, where they should come from and what the time scale for reform should be. Those are all important issues, not least to parliamentarians in this House. Pre-empting that by giving financial powers to the other place—as the proposal is, in essence, a move towards doing—by having it scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill jointly with this House is a start on a slippery slope in relation to the historical division on financial matters that has existed ever since democracy in this place was established. The proposal begins to unravel that and one might think that there are some within the coalition whose very agenda that is—those who want a proportionally elected second Chamber that has those financial powers. It seems to me that they have managed to sneak in, through this proposal at this late hour and this late stage—indeed, it would have been without this debate had we not tabled this amendment—potentially a constitutional issue of profound ramifications. It would mean handing over, albeit the very first semblance of doing so, financial powers, decision-making powers and authority to a second Chamber that some want to become an elected Chamber in the very near future.

There will be different views about that and I do not intend to go into what those views are—that is for another day—but it is relevant to the amendment to point out the consequences. Hon. Members who vote through this unwise, undemocratic, unegalitarian, anti-regions, anti-nations, badly thought-out, badly timetabled, rushed and last-minute proposal will be opening this House to potential ridicule from future generations who come here. They will ask when was the moment when we handed over to the other place that first little bit of power in relation to financial matters. When did we allow the second Chamber—

Privilege

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. If somebody went to the police and alleged that somebody was stalking them, and the police visited the stalker’s house and found not only photographs of, and personal details about, the person who made the allegation, but photographs of another 20 people, I presume and hope that the police would go to those other 20 people and inform them that their personal situation had been compromised and that they had been the subjects of that person’s activities. The police should have engaged in precisely the same duty of care towards not just right hon. and hon. Members, but any member of the public who had been the subject of Mr Mulcaire’s attention.

There is a second piece of new information. Two former members of staff at the News of the World have said that the hacking was far more extensive than so far revealed. Indeed, today, Paul McMullan, a former features executive and member of the News of the World’s investigations team, has said that he personally commissioned several hundred illegal acts, and that the use of illegal techniques at the newspaper was absolutely no secret.

Thirdly, although it has been stated that the case was an isolated bad apple, the Information Commissioner, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) has mentioned, has suggested that the unlawful trade in confidential personal information is extensive across the media, citing more than 1,000 transactions positively identified by a large number of newspapers. Looking through the list, it seems that the only newspaper that is not included is the Rhondda Leader.

Why refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee? First, because it is the senior Committee of the House. Secondly, because, by referring it to the Committee, it will have the support and full authority of the whole House—nobody can gainsay it. When the matter of the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was referred to a specially created committee of privileges, that committee resolved that such an instance should be referred not to a special committee, but to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who chaired that committee is nodding his assent.