House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

As my hon. Friend knows, this Bill is expressly limited to matters of conduct. That has been made clear in the Bill and throughout the debates in this House and the other place. The power of expulsion that the Bill confers on the other place is similar to the power that we already have in this House. This House has an inherent power to expel Members if it needs to, but the other place cannot do so because, without primary legislation, it cannot override the right of peers to receive a writ of summons. I hope that that deals with my hon. Friend’s point.

The Bill is also already explicitly limited to matters of conduct by subsection (4) of clause 1. It is certainly envisaged that a resolution to suspend or expel would only follow from a report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. Proceedings on the Bill in the Lords made it clear that any relevant breach would be linked to the existing code of conduct. The Government therefore do not support the new clauses or amendment 18.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I should like to begin by thanking all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate for their interest in the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for making it clear at the beginning of his remarks that he supported the principle behind the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Bill conforms to the requirements of the European convention on human rights. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who, as always, has raised important issues that will need addressing as we go through the legislation.

I should like to put the new clauses and amendments, and indeed the Bill, into perspective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, the Bill basically does two things. It enables a suspension to go beyond the lifetime of the current Parliament, and it enables the House of Lords to expel a Member. It does not change anything else. It does not change the code of conduct or the environment in which the code is administered, and it does not change the interface between the House of Lords and the courts in regard to issues such as exclusive cognisance. So, to some extent, the broader issues that he has raised have already been dealt with in the context of the original introduction of the code of conduct and of how the system works.

The Bill has no direct impact on this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that clauses had been dropped because they were controversial, but there has been no sign so far—certainly in the upper House—of any controversy. Indeed, there was an absence of controversy as the Bill went through. The upper House sees it as an important building block in restoring the reputation of that House, by giving it clear powers to expel a Member whose behaviour is unacceptable. There will be an indirect benefit for this House, in that anything that restores confidence in Parliament is good for both Houses.

I turn now to the new clauses and the amendment. I understand exactly why my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury tabled new clause 1. I understand that in the House of Lords, technically, it is not the Lord Speaker who lays such documents. That is in fact done by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which lays on the Table the reports of any investigation into the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords. The Committee is already required to do that by Standing Order No. 68 of the House of Lords, which states:

“Reports from Select Committees shall be laid on the Table and ordered to be printed. Notice shall be given on the Order Paper of the day on which the report is to be considered .”

I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that we do not need any changes to the legislation or to Standing Orders to enable such reports to be laid.

My right hon. Friend made an important point about natural justice. If he looks at the House of Lords code of conduct, he will see that paragraph 19 states:

“In investigating and adjudicating allegations of non-compliance with this Code, the Commissioner, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct shall act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.”

Also, if he looks at those who sit on the Committee, he will see that it is required, by Standing Order No. 77, to include two former holders of high judicial office. I therefore think that we can be confident that the fate that befell poor Lord Lovat will not befall any errant peer; no one will be subjected to a kangaroo court. We can be confident that the principles of natural justice will be upheld. The Standing Order also states:

“A Committee for Privileges and Conduct shall be appointed at the beginning of every session; sixteen Lords shall be named of the Committee, of whom two shall be former holders of high judicial office.”

My right hon. Friend went on to deal with the issues of privilege, and he referred to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and an amendment inserted in the Bill that became that Act by the House of Lords. That Bill was a very different animal from this one. The Bill then being considered contained provisions that seriously risked breaching privilege. He may well remember the decisive intervention of the then Clerk of the House, Malcolm Jack, who produced a report during the passage of the Bill expressing the concerns in this House. That Bill explicitly required the production of a code of conduct relating to financial instruments and it set out that it must be laid before the House of Commons. The Bill detailed at some length the procedure of any investigation into a breach of that code and established a new offence of providing false or misleading information about allowance claims.

The short Bill before us is a very different animal and does none of those things. Unlike with the 2009 Act, the Bill has raised no concerns from the Clerks of the Parliaments, nor has anyone raised any concern about its current drafting risking parliamentary privilege. As the Minister has just said, matters of parliamentary privilege do not need to be expressly stated in legislation in order not to be justiciable.

Let me now address the measures proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on the code of conduct. A code of conduct is already produced, and it is published by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. That already takes place under Standing Order No. 77. All reports from that Committee that have recommended that a sanction should be applied have included a very clear reference to the relevant provision of the code that was breached in each instance—that is also what happens in this House. The most recent investigation gives us an example of how this is done. The Committee’s report summarises and includes the findings of the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards and the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, all of which include specific reference to which paragraphs of the code of conduct the Member was alleged to have broken. The most recent report states:

“The complaint alleged that Lord Redesdale breached the Code of Conduct by not registering certain interests in the Register of Lords’ Interests (in breach of paragraph 10(a) of the Code) and by registering certain other interests more than one month after those interests came about (in breach of paragraph 13).”

Other reports on the conduct of noble peers, such as the one on the conduct of Lord Hanningfield, contain explicit reference to which particular breach of the code has taken place. My understanding is that the case of Lord Rennard was not referred because the code specifically says:

“Matters not falling within the Commissioner’s remit include…Members’ non-parliamentary activities.”

That is not wholly dissimilar to the rules that apply to us in this House and it explains why that case did not go before the relevant Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for being so brief.

The Government oppose the amendments, but I will speak briefly because I want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) the opportunity to push the Bill through today. Amendments 1 to 5 and 16 remove all references to expulsion in the Bill, thereby removing from the entire Bill the power to expel a peer. The Government do not support removing the power to expel. That power would allow peers to deal with particularly serious misconduct and would bring the disciplinary powers of the House of Lords more in line with those of the House of Commons.

We expect the House of Lords to need to use such powers rarely, as has been the case in the House of Commons, which has not exercised its powers to expel since 1954. Nevertheless, we think it appropriate for both Houses to have such a power in order to deal effectively with those who bring the House into disrepute.

[Sir George Young]

I have listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friends in this debate, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who in Committee made it clear that he had reservations about expulsion. I have gone back to the sponsors of the Bill and had discussions with the upper House. If anything, the power to expel is almost more important to them than the power to carry on suspension beyond a Parliament, and it would strike at the very heart of the Bill if that provision were removed.

We already have powers to expel if someone is sentenced to more than a year’s imprisonment, but during debates in the upper House it was made clear that many breaches of the code of conduct would not be a criminal offence but are of sufficient severity to justify a Member of the House being expelled. The House of Lords wants the powers that we have to expel a Member if their conduct is unacceptable. Expulsion is different to suspension, and it is important that the upper House should have the power to expel because its Members cannot be expelled by constituents in the way that we can be. We should therefore think hard before we deny the House of Lords a power that it wants and sees as essential in restoring confidence in the institution—a power that the House of Commons already has.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that there are active proposals to do what the previous Government proposed—they were persuaded not to do it—and merge some of the police forces in this country. So far as front-line services are concerned, the Home Secretary has repeatedly made it clear that although police authorities have to take difficult decisions, we believe that through having joint services and intelligent commissioning, by getting other people to carry out some of the services currently performed by police officers, the quality and integrity of front-line services can be maintained.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Local Reading mum Rebecca Rye has raised concerns with me about the health effects on her son Edward of so-called energy drinks. Given the growing research evidence, including a paper from the university of Miami, there is significant cause for concern for vulnerable groups about effects such as seizures, strokes and even sudden death. As parents are very concerned, may we have a statement from a Health Minister or a debate in Government time about this very important subject?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. There is concern about the impact on some people of high energy drinks. The UK Food Standards Agency considers that the effects of caffeine are transitory and without permanent health effects. It has published advice that children and other people who are sensitive to caffeine should consume such drinks only in moderation. If my hon. Friend has further evidence, the FSA and the Department of Health would very much like to have a look at it to see whether that advice needs revision in the light of the evidence.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There were questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday this week. I do not know whether there was an opportunity to raise the issue then. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend and seek to establish when an announcement will be made about the capital programme, particularly as it impacts on Coventry.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

As well as being a terrible tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, the death of PC David Rathband poses difficult questions about how we support police constables who have been wounded in the line of duty. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on this important and urgent issue?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, particularly given the background that he has touched on. I cannot promise a debate in the near future in Government time, but it strikes me as an appropriate subject for a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall. I am sure that a large number of Members on both sides of the House would like to take part in such a debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I may have inadvertently misled the House, Mr Speaker, by saying that MOJ questions are next Tuesday; I understand that they are not.

Set-piece debates on defence procurement happened in the previous Parliament. Days for such debates are now allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. Bids for debates on defence procurement are therefore a matter for that Committee, and I am sure that the Chairman has noted the hon. Lady’s bid.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has written to journalist Polly Toynbee about her backing of a militant campaign to destroy the work experience programme. May we have a debate about why work experience is important and why backing trendy left-wing causes and destroying jobs is not?

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend and commend the forthright way in which he said that. The introduction of the new work experience scheme, focused on 18 to 21-year-olds, offers them work experience and the ability to retain their benefits, which they could not do for as long a period before. That is an opportunity—a voluntary opportunity—for young people, and the initial evidence is that 51% subsequently come off benefits, so it is a good use of their time. I commend the employers who have offered the scheme, as well as Tesco, which has a parallel scheme that offers four weeks’ paid employment and then an opportunity for a job through an interview. It is wrong to decry these initiatives; we need more of them, not fewer.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The Government are anxious that we should have the normal pre-Easter recess Adjournment debate, which is normally scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, and that is why we are scheduling an additional day’s debate on the Friday after the Budget; if we did not do so, there would be a risk that that popular occasion would be squeezed out of the calendar.

The Prime Minister relishes Prime Minister’s questions—probably more than the Leader of the Opposition does. If the hon. Lady had been listening to what I said, she would have heard me announce that the House would be rising on a Thursday in December, not on a Tuesday. As for the upper House, the Labour party has more peers than any other party and if there was representation on the basis of votes at the previous general election, Labour would clearly not be entitled to that number of peers.

There are three principles in the Health and Social Care Bill: more control for patients; more power for professionals; and less bureaucracy. Those are three principles that the previous Labour Government were embarked on following when they were in power; they were establishing foundation trusts, they were promoting choice and they were promoting practice-based commissioning in the mid-2000s. We take forward that agenda. In addition, I say to the hon. Lady that it is called the “Health and Social Care Bill”—everyone agrees that social care must be linked more closely to the NHS, and the Bill promotes better financial and professional integration. As for the independent sector, I just remind her of what her manifesto said:

“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care”.

We are actually precluding the sort of arrangements that Labour promoted, whereby independent treatment centres were parachuted into the NHS with no powers for the NHS to compete.

On the point about the education Minister, the shadow Leader of the House was a Minister and she knows perfectly well that Ministers are occasionally away on ministerial business. That was the issue for my hon. Friend. If the shadow Leader of the House looks at the voting register, she will find that a large number of her colleagues did not take part in that particular vote.

On taxing the banks, the shadow Leader of the House will know that our annual levy on the banks brings in more each year than Labour’s one-off tax—that deals with that issue.

On international women’s day, that debate is one of the fixed events now allocated to the Backbench Business Committee, but I can say in response to the hon. Lady’s question that we will seek to allocate to that Committee a day so that it can hold the traditional debate on international women’s day roughly on the date when it occurs in March.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the purpose of confirmatory hearings by Select Committees, particularly those into public appointments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very unwise for Ministers to disregard the autonomy and authority of Select Committees, particularly the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills?

[Sir George Young]

I am aware of the report by the BIS Committee and what it said about the proposed appointment at the Office for Fair Access. The Government will want to reflect on that Committee’s recommendations before they come to a conclusion on any appointment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday and answered questions for almost two hours. There was adequate opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, others to press him on the matter. The Prime Minister answered questions on Monday, and I cannot believe that there is any uncertainty left about where the Government stand on this matter.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

This week I attended the screening of “The Iron Lady” and was disturbed by the way in which the film portrayed its subject. Can we therefore have a debate on respect, good manners and good taste, as I found the film—although brilliantly acted—to be disrespectful to a Member of this Parliament?

[Sir George Young]

Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not had the benefit of seeing the film, although I know a number of hon. Members saw it earlier this week. There were conflicting views about it. Some found it to be a good film; others, obviously like my hon. Friend, found bits of it to be distasteful. I would welcome a debate, but I think Ministers should be cautious about expressing views that might be seen to be a form of censorship of films produced by independent producers.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not made a statement, but he is holding in his hand the Government’s statement. As I said a few moments ago, the record of this Government on making statements is better than the record of the Government whom he supported.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Following the schools Minister’s welcome announcement this morning that grammar schools such as those in my constituency will be allowed to expand, may we have a debate on grammar schools and their positive impact on social mobility?

[Sir George Young]

Again, my hon. Friend’s request might have been heard by the Backbench Business Committee. The policy of the coalition Government is that, where grammar schools exist, they should be allowed to expand. We are not, however, in favour of starting them in areas that do not have them. I personally would welcome such a debate, and I hope that that can be arranged through the Backbench Business Committee or possibly on the Adjournment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As a former supporter of Reading football club, I was less than pleased at the outcome of that match. The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of electrification several times, but we would not save any time if we made the change that he outlines. It has been raised several times at Transport questions, and despite the heroic work of his local football club I would be misleading him if I said that it would generate enough traffic to alter substantially the arithmetic on which that decision was based.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Following information from whistleblowers, I recently raised the case of The Manchester college and its highly questionable activities in relation to the delivery of taxpayer-funded training contracts at prisons such as Reading. May we therefore have a debate on the illegal and inefficient spending of taxpayers’ money, in which I would be able, for example, to call for a thorough audit of all the taxpayer money that has gone to The Manchester college?

[Sir George Young]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern if there has been any misuse of taxpayers’ funds. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Minister and ask him to write to my hon. Friend, reassuring him either that there has been no misuse or that appropriate action is being taken to ensure that any misuse is put right.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman says, “Don’t put it off to the Backbench Business Committee,” but in my view, the House took the right decision when it decided that the Government should no longer have an exclusive monopoly on what subjects were debated. That is why at least 35 days a year are given to the Committee, leaving the Government with responsibility for the legislative programme. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who feel strongly about foreign affairs, to go and make their pitch to the Backbench Business Committee to try to secure time for such a debate.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

The previous Labour-run local authority in Reading has left huge debts of several thousands of pounds for each of my constituents. May we therefore have a debate in Government time to look at these irresponsible levels of local government debt?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear of the legacy bequeathed to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As I announced a few moments ago, there will be a debate on the revenue support grant on Wednesday week, and I hope that that will be an opportunity for him to raise those issues at greater length.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Rob Wilson

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. There was a debate on housing benefit in Westminster Hall yesterday, but I am not sure whether she was able to attend. The proposed changes will require legislation, and there will be an opportunity as the legislation goes through Parliament to raise the issues that she touches on.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on the dreadful—I mean dreadful—state of much of the education in our youth offenders institutions?

[Sir George Young]

There may be an opportunity to raise that particular subject at Justice questions, or it may be an appropriate topic for a debate. In the meantime, I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Justice to my hon. Friend’s concern.