Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I am not a lawyer; I dropped out of studying law after my first year because my exams coincided with the general election, so I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in how litigious lawyers can be and how they will seek to make money out of whatever proposals there may be. I do not agree, however, that the new clauses will lead to a huge amount of litigation, so allow me to outline how I think they would work. If the hon. Gentleman has proposals for improving the Bill, I would be happy to hear them.

No Government amendment contains all the required measures, so my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I worked on the amendments and adjusted them in the light of criticisms from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. Although we do not have the Government’s seal of approval, we believe this is a workable approach that can, if necessary, be tweaked in another place, which has more specialist constitutional lawyers than this House. We feel that we should not simply hand the Bill over to the Lords unamended and say, “Try to sort the whole thing out”, without giving them a strong steer. Recall applies to Members of this House; the other place can consider the detail, but it should not be considering the principles.

Our proposed option would be in addition to triggers already in the Bill and would mean that 500 electors could sign a petition alleging misconduct by an MP. An election court would hear evidence of that misconduct and any rebuttal by the MP, and decide

“whether, on the basis of the evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”

If the court upheld the allegation, that would act as another trigger for a recall petition in the same way as a suspension by the standards Committee of this House would do. However, because there would have been no proof of misconduct, only evidence of reasonable belief, we would require a slightly higher hurdle for the petition—15% rather than 10% of the electorate. That change is one of a number that we introduced, and we hope that the new clauses answer the criticisms that were made.

Let me highlight our other changes. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) both felt that 100 petitioners, as in the original proposal, was too low a number and too easy to achieve, so we increased that to 500. We are not keen to go higher because the court’s role in ruling out unsubstantiated trivial or vexatious cases is best before the complaint has built up a large head of steam. Otherwise, it rather obviates the point of the later petition phase, which needs 15% of the electorate. The provision also simplifies the rules on expenses. Five hundred is a substantial barrier to a small or trivial claim—one annoyed individual, for example—but not if there is a real sense among the public that an MP has done something wrong.

The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Liverpool, West Derby pointed out one serious flaw in our previous drafting—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was explicit about this. We were trying to apply the common law offence of misconduct in public office to Members representing Scotland and Northern Ireland, where that common law offence does not apply. We sought to get around that by stipulating that courts would act as though the offence were in England and Wales, on the basis that the House is in England, but that was inelegant and we accept that it was flawed. We solved the problem by specifying in the Bill the definition to be used, which is taken from the Attorney-General’s advice on common law in England and Wales. We are therefore no longer asking a court to determine anything based on a jurisdiction that is not its own, and we can still benefit from existing case law for that wording.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the House, when in Committee, was sympathetic to the view that there should be a mechanism by which members of the public in a constituency are able to initiate a recall process, but it has to be one that we understand will work. Is the test, which the new clause intends to apply, analogous to the offence of misconduct in public office, or is it something less than that? If it is that, why will it not, if a court determines there is prima facie evidence, trigger a prosecution?

[Dr Huppert]

The wording is exactly the wording there would be for misconduct. First, that offence does not exist in Scotland or Northern Ireland. I will come on to that later with an example, but there are some issues. We would want Members to be equal, broadly speaking, regardless of where they have been elected from. The other issue is that although the offence of misconduct in public office is used quite regularly against police officers—there are a number of other cases—it has never actually been used against a Member of Parliament. There is a question of whether we trust the Crown Prosecution Service to be the deciding factor, particularly when there could be questions about how it would interact with various Members and Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I will have to check the wording of the article—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am not challenging the hon. Gentleman; it is possible, in writing it so speedily, that I miswrote it, because that is certainly not what it ought to say. That is not how it ought to work, and if I wrote that, it was my mistake and I apologise to him and anyone else who read it. I will check it as soon as I have a chance.

The system in Minnesota, which is similar to what we are suggesting, seems to work. Our proposal would protect MPs from trivial recall petitions, but allow the public a route, not mediated by the House, to recall MPs who have committed misconduct. I hope, therefore, that the House will support new clauses 2 and 3, along with the consequential amendments, when I put them later today.

I wish to turn briefly to the other amendments in the group, many of which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and others.

[Mr Lansley]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to other amendments, I would find it helpful if he explained whether new clause 3(1), which says that the conduct that has to be alleged by the petitioners to a court must constitute

“misconduct in the office of member of parliament”,

is consistent with subsection (2), which says:

“The court may consider…conduct…whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.”

We would be in the curious position where conduct unrelated to the office of a Member of Parliament and duties consequent on that office might be used to allege misconduct in that office. Is that not contradictory?

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that we are making progress with the transition to PIPs and there are clearly issues that have to be resolved to make that happen. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions and see what further update they can give the House on the progress being made in dealing with those outstanding issues.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

To mark yesterday’s 25th anniversary of the web, Tim Berners-Lee called for a digital Bill of Rights, something my party also called for at its recent spring conference. Will the Leader of the House make sure time is available for such a Bill to be debated, and could he persuade the Queen to include it in her speech?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. What plans he has to increase the use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the previous Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Leader of the House. It is clear that there have been some benefits. The recent Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill ended up with a lot of provisions that were recommended on pre-legislative scrutiny, although the process would have been faster if they had been included straight away. Does he agree that the principle should be that, unless there are exceptional reasons, all Bills should go through some sort of pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Mr Lansley]

We endeavour to publish legislation in draft, but it is not always possible. My hon. Friend and the House will understand that, for example, at the start of a Parliament, or sometimes for reasons of policy, measures have to be brought in at a pace that does not permit the kind of pre-legislative scrutiny that we would generally seek. Let me point out that only this week we debated the Deregulation Bill on Second Reading, and that was scrutinised in draft form; and in the previous week, the Consumer Rights Bill came to the House, and that had had substantial pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend to the House how we are continuing to engage in that.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That sounds as though it is a particularly difficult and distressing situation for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If I may, I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can help.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Isa Muazu has been held for months in Harmondsworth detention centre and has been on hunger strike for more than 100 days. He is ill and cannot stand or see properly. The Home Secretary tried to deport him nonetheless, but the plane had to fly back from Nigeria. May we have a debate on why the Home Secretary has spent well over £100,000 on trying to deport a seriously ill man?

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will join in thanking Rev. Alan Barrett and Janet for their voluntary service and the leadership they have given to voluntary service. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the record of volunteering in his constituency, which is reflected across the country; volunteering continues to be well supported. I hope that we will even increase it in the future, not least because of what the Prime Minister has done in promoting the National Citizen Service, in which this summer more than 30,000 young people will take part. That creates for them the prospect of a lifetime of public service and volunteering.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Two days ago, the Competition Commission made a bizarre decision that may force the sale of the much-loved and well-used Cambridge Arts Picturehouse. The Competition Commission has previously refused to act on Stagecoach’s near-complete monopoly of bus services in Cambridge or on Tesco’s dominance in the grocery market in Cambridge, but it is acting in a case where not only do the public not have concern, but many thousands have signed a petition against the Competition Commission’s decision. May we please have a debate on whether the Competition Commission should focus on real local monopolies and leave the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse alone?

[Mr Lansley]

I say to my neighbour, having visited the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, that I agree with him; it is an excellent facility in Cambridge, and I do not think for a minute that it is in the same market as some of the multiplexes outside the centre of Cambridge. The job of the Competition Commission is to identify markets and act to restrict monopolies in those markets, but I do not think we are talking about the same market here. The point my hon. Friend makes is a good one. Speaking purely personally, and not for the Government in this context, I share his view that there is no cause for the Competition Commission to seek to intervene in the ownership of the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will not reiterate the points I have made, beyond saying that DECC Ministers will be here on 11 July to answer questions. I know that they will want to keep the House fully updated. I hope that we might have an opportunity for a debate between now and the summer recess, if not in Government time, then in Back-Bench time or elsewhere.

While I am at the dispatch Box, Mr Speaker, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) that there was a debate on public expenditure and health care services next Tuesday. I was wrong; it is Wednesday.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We rely absolutely on the police and the intelligence and security services, who do a great job, but we must have confidence that they are acting within clear and agreed safeguards. This has been hit by a series of revelations over the last few weeks about GCHQ and the activities of undercover policing. Will there be an opportunity for an open debate in this House so that we can set out what we believe are the parameters within which they should do their vital work?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came to the Dispatch Box when there had been previous press reports to give the assurances in relation to GCHQ that my hon. Friend and others have sought. These matters continue to be carefully considered inside Government. It is very difficult sometimes to have debates about some of these matters, but the House should remember that now, literally, following the Justice and Security Act 2013, we now have the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, part of whose work is to ensure that precisely those sorts of safeguards and scrutiny are in place.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Lady, especially at this time of year, for drawing attention to the courage and example of the men and women of the Special Operations Executive, and of Noor Inayat Khan in particular. The House will also recall early-day motion 109 in that respect. I hope that the memorial to her—the sculpture to which the hon. Lady referred—will constantly remind people of the remarkable courage of those in the Special Operations Executive and the contribution they made.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The leader of Cambridgeshire county council recently wrote that global warming “may not exist” and that if it does, it is

“not caused by human activity”.

He described it as a theory espoused by “bourgeois left-wing academics”. Does the Leader of the House join me in condemning this irresponsible and anti-scientific position, and will he find time for a debate about evidence-informed policy?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not join my hon. Friend in that respect, although that does not mean that I agree with the leader of Cambridgeshire county council. We are all allowed our views, and he is allowed his. My hon. Friend and I will have talked to many of the scientists at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. When one does so, it amply illustrates the character of climate change, what is really going on and the threat it poses.

Life Sciences

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here and able to ask that question, because he was the Chair of the Health Committee in September 2007, when it stated that the secondary use of data in the NHS was “vital” for the development of the NHS, including for research use. I hope that he is one of those who recognise that what we are setting out in the life sciences strategy—in particular, with the clinical practice research datalink—will enable precisely all those secondary uses for research to be developed.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

As the Secretary of State will know well, the Cambridge area is world leading in life sciences, both in academia and in industry. This strategy, and the investment to go with it, is very welcome indeed and will, I am sure, support a lot of activity in Cambridge and in South Cambridgeshire. There is one slightly sour note about private data, however, so I hope that the details will be published of exactly how the steps to which the Secretary of State referred will be taken to protect that, but, on clinical trials and what will happen to regulation, will he implement in full the recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows from her conversations with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), we are very sympathetic to her concerns. By devolving commissioning responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups, I expect the local clinical leadership, understanding fully the contribution that community hospitals can make, to be supportive of that in their commissioning intentions in her constituency and others.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

14. What plans he has to ensure balanced political and geographical representation on health and wellbeing boards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

So there we have it, Secretary of State. [Hon. Members: “Secretary of State?”] I meant “Mr Speaker”—you are far more elevated than a Secretary of State, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Secretary of State’s belief is that the NHS budget should be cut. I fail to see how that could help social care. We are going to look much more positively at how we can join up the work of the NHS and social care. What my colleagues and I have announced on 30-day support for patients leaving hospital, including rehabilitation and re-ablement, will do precisely that, relieving some of the pressures on social care by seeing the NHS as a more holistic service for patients.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T5. Does the Secretary of State accept the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee’s report “Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy”? Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) gave a commitment to an evidence-based approach and today the British Medical Association passed a motion about homeopathy. Given the financial constraints in which we all share, can the Secretary of State defend spending millions of pounds of NHS money on methods that simply do not work?