Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

That is a matter that we need to take up with the writers of “Erskine May”, but nevertheless, it is there. This is about interpretation and that is what it says.

Of the private Members’ Bills in need of a money resolution, the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton is the only Bill that received its Second Reading in 2017 and has yet to have a money resolution agreed. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is lucky: his Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill had its Second Reading on the same day—1 December 2017—but after my hon. Friend’s Bill, and it has been given its money resolution today. However, the whole point about procedures, processes and conventions is that Members should not have to be lucky. It should not have to be granted at the whim of the Government. There should be certainty.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will know that the Procedure Committee has come up with two excellent reports in the past four years on how to reform private Members’ Bills. These reports have been resisted by the Whips Offices on both sides of the House. Does she think we should have another go?

[Valerie Vaz]

I appreciate the hard work the hon. Gentleman does on the Procedure Committee, but sadly it is not up to me; I wish it were—I would like to support him.

Thirdly, how do the measures in the Bill differ from the Government’s instructions to the boundary commissions? What would the Bill actually do? It was the ninth Bill of the Session presented and passed its Second Reading by an overwhelming 229 to 44 votes on 1 December. It is an important Bill because it would give instructions to the boundary commissions different from the previous constrained instructions. It would do several things to those constrained instructions. Clause 1 would alter the change in the size of the House of Commons made by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 from 600 to 650 Members and provide a fixed allocation of 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, with the remaining 632 in Great Britain. Six hundred is an arbitrary figure. Where is the evidence that the number of constituencies should be reduced to 600?

Clause 2 would change the current UK-wide requirement for constituencies, excluding the four island seats, to be within plus or minus 5% of the electoral quota and establish new quotas, one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland. In each case, there would be a requirement for constituencies to be within plus or minus 7.5% of the relevant electoral quota.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I join the hon. Lady in thanking our armed forces for the superb work that they did. I point out to her that in fact the Prime Minister did seek an urgent debate today, but that was not to be granted. I also point out that the Prime Minister just answered questions for three and a quarter hours. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that that was something of a useful contribution to the parliamentary debate.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Many important issues that came out of today’s exchanges will continue to cause interest and concern for Members of Parliament. Will the Leader of the House make sure that in the months ahead the Backbench Business Committee has plenty of days to allocate, to ensure that all Members of Parliament can continue to raise their concerns on the Floor of the House?

Nomination of Members to Committees

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am not afraid to cross swords with my Government. I have been the Chairman of that Committee for five years, and we have had several run-ins. For the record, I will go through them. We had a run-in over amendments to the Queen’s Speech and the bouncing of Parliament over the election of the Speaker—a particularly raw moment in my political career. We had the impenetrable and unnecessary complexity of English votes for English laws—although the Committee made excellent suggestions, they fell on deaf ears, as the Government chose to ignore them. We have had the Government’s belligerence regarding the reform of private Members’ Bills, but I shall continue in my efforts to reform that bit of nonsense. Most recently, Opposition Members will remember that I stood up and berated the Government for not giving Opposition days in a timely fashion to Her Majesty’s Opposition. I said that the Government were being ungenerous and that they should be generous.

I am, therefore, no friend of the Government Front Bench. I trash them and I lash them—thwack, thwack, thwack—on a regular basis. [Laughter.] Have I broken with parliamentary convention, Madam Deputy Speaker? If I have, let us put it before the Procedure Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is being wonderfully dramatic; that is perfectly within parliamentary convention.

[Mr Walker]

Politics is show business for ugly people, and I am a frustrated actor.

Try as I might, however, I cannot work myself up into a lather about this. I would love to be furious with the Government—I really would—but I cannot be. I get angry very quickly and blow up, and I make some spectacular apologies, but I cannot get too wound up about this.

If the House will indulge me, may I go back in time and revisit the 1970s? From March 1974 until April 1979, the Wilson Government, despite being a minority Administration at times, had a majority on the Committee of Selection for all but three months of their five years in office.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Wilson and Callaghan Governments.

[Mr Walker]

Of course; forgive me. I was only a small child at the time—I was in shorts.

The only time the Wilson Government did not have a majority on the Committee of Selection was when the Labour Chairman, Hugh Delargy, died. From 4 May 1976 Labour’s majority on the Committee was restricted for three months, until 6 August. The majority was then restored after the House wrung out the concession that, when appointing Members to Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection would appoint even numbers.

[Hon. Members]

Aha!

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I give way, but there is an “Aha” here.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The House of Commons Library has provided an excellent briefing for the debate. According to my reading of it, during that period in 1976, the then Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher, vehemently denounced the trickery of the Labour Government. Was she wrong?

[Mr Walker]

Lots of things are said, but we are looking at what happened, and the fact of what happened is that for the entirety of the Wilson/Callaghan Governments—well, for all but three months, so not quite the entirety—the Government of the day had a majority on the Committee of Selection: when they were a majority Government and when they were a minority Government, at times.

It is worth hon. Members reading the motion because there is nothing to prevent the Selection Committee from choosing to have an even number of members of Standing Committees. What the motion says is that when Selection Committee decides to have odd numbers—if indeed it ever decides to have odd numbers—the balance will be in favour of the Government. However, it could well be—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will in a moment, because I have a lot of time for my friend opposite.

It could well be that the Selection Committee, under the chairmanship, I suspect, of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), that noted free spirit, will decide on many occasions that the balance should be equal, so I still do not understand why we are getting so exercised about this. I now give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about wringing out concessions. Is he suggesting that the concession we should demand is that the Selection Committee agrees to even numbers, and we can then accept that?

[Mr Walker]

That should absolutely be for the Committee to decide. It is not impossible that its Chairman, who will want to work with all Members, may decide that there should be an even number of Members on Bill Committees. That cannot be ruled out, and it is entirely possible.

Let me say, in conclusion, that there is a lot of sound and fury around this issue. I know the Opposition Chief Whip, and I think he is a genius, but he is a—with a small “c”—conservative Whip. I suspect that some of my exotic plans to reform private Members’ Bills have been thwarted by not just my own side but the Opposition Chief Whip. I merely say that, I suspect through a half smile, the Opposition Chief Whip entirely understands why the Government are doing this, and can accept it.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Unfortunately, a serious point was not picked up by either the Leader of the House or her shadow: the published deal between the Conservative party and the DUP is confined exclusively to confidence and supply. The serious issue for people in Northern Ireland, and for the House, is that the insistence of the Leader of the House that the Government have a majority on the Floor of the House gives rise to speculation that secret side deals have been done with the DUP. Surely the hon. Gentleman should be insisting that those deals are revealed to the House.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady knows that that is far above my pay grade. I do not think that secret deals have been done, but I do know this: the Government have commanded a majority in the House on the basis of the 17 votes connected with Government business.

I have been good-natured this evening, because I want the debate to be good-natured. I take being Chairman of the Procedure Committee incredibly seriously, and if at any time I felt that the Government were doing something untoward, I would hold them to account, as I have done time and again in the House. I say genuinely to Opposition Members that I really do not understand what the upset is.

[Mr Carmichael]

May I presume from what the Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will join us in the Lobby to support my amendment? If it were passed, the Government would of course still have a majority on the Selection Committee, but would just have to use it in accordance with the procedures of the House as they have always been accepted. Why is that objectionable?

[Mr Walker]

Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said is objectionable. I will not be joining him in the Lobby, but not because I find what he is proposing objectionable—I just happen to disagree with it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me make it clear to the House what the deal between our party and the Government is. First, there are no side deals; it is a confidence and supply agreement. The important point for this debate is that the purpose of the confidence and supply agreement is to ensure stable government over the period of this Parliament, and that requires the Government to be able to get their Bills through and to have the requisite numbers on Committees as well.

[Mr Walker]

I am glad this debate is providing us with an opportunity to revisit the agreement. I suspect that I would not be in order if I were to respond to that intervention, so I think the best thing for me to do is to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for being so generous, and to sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I entered the Chamber this evening thinking, like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), that this was a lot of hot air—that this was a fuss about nothing because, self-evidently, the Conservative party has a working majority on the Floor of the House of Commons. Not only has the Conservative party won every single vote in this House since the election and demonstrated a working majority, but it has won each vote by more than the number of additional supporting votes we garner from the Democratic Unionist party. There can therefore be no question but that the Conservative party has a working majority on the Floor of the House of Commons. If that is the case, there can be no question but that, in the eyes of the public, the Conservative party would be expected to have a working majority upstairs in Committee.

What are those of us on the Government Benches arguing for this evening? We are arguing against a Labour proposal that would turn every Committee decision back to this Chamber, gum up this Parliament, and throw a functioning Government into a state of paralysis on the Floor of the House. Yet the Labour party argues that we are seeking to do something undemocratic. It argues that a paralysed Government who can do no business on Brexit or anything else is somehow more democratic than the working majority that this Government have demonstrated every week in Parliament.

We have to ask ourselves what is the aim of opposing tonight’s motion. Is it some pretence of outrage about protecting democracy, or is it in fact an attempt to make sure the Government grind to a halt? There can be no question that Labour is seeking to grind the Government and the whole country to a halt, and that cannot be a democratic or sensible way for us to respect the wishes of the people who voted in the general election in June. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said there was something about democracy that was not always convenient. We could not have a better case of the pot calling the kettle black, because if we voted against the motion, democracy and the Government would be frustrated at every level. The idea that this is anything other than a naked power grab by an Opposition seeking to frustrate Brexit and this Government is absurd. Who is it who is seeking to frustrate democracy? Is it a Government who have a working majority here simply seeking one upstairs, or is it an Opposition party seeking to grind us to a halt?

[Mr Charles Walker]

This entire debate is a dead letter because the best the Opposition could hope for is an equal number on a Bill Committee, and in the event of a tie, which most votes would be, the Bill would remain unamended anyway, so none of their proposals would be carried.

[Matt Warman]

I want to agree with my hon. Friend that we should not get too wound up and should just carry on, but I cannot when we are being accused by Opposition parties of seeking to fundamentally subvert democracy. What subverts democracy fundamentally are Opposition parties of whatever flavour that want to use this as a pretext to grind the process of leaving the EU to a halt and to grind the Government’s entire business to a halt. I dare to say to my hon. Friend that Government Members should not be so relaxed as to not make a fuss about this. We should be passionate about getting the will of the British people through, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We should be passionate about the Government getting their business done, with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum reflected, and that is what the motion seeks to do.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I love process and procedure, and I do not think it is to be derided or criticised. Process and procedure is why we settle big debates in this place and not out there on the streets, so there are no apologies from me.

I am delighted that we have such experts in this place on process and procedure. I know very little about it, but my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is an expert, as are you, Mr Speaker, in the Chair today. I do not want to sound like a crashing bore in what is my maiden speech in my fourth Parliament —four Parliaments is quite impressive; we are moving in the right direction. But I would just say that the genuine maiden speech—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

“Erskine May” makes it clear that someone’s maiden speech is their maiden speech only in their first Parliament, so they are allowed to be interrupted in subsequent Parliaments.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes that point brilliantly in the way that only he can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) made a fantastic speech, a Unionist speech, and touched on a part of the world I love greatly, Scotland. It is a beautiful country and my hon. Friend will be a fantastic representative for her constituency.

Although she is not in her place, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made a fabulous speech about a part of the world I hold very dear. I was, after all, a councillor in Battersea, in the borough of Wandsworth, for many years—well, actually, for four years, but it seemed longer. I was a councillor for the most famous and celebrated ward of Battersea, Balham. If you are going to be a councillor anywhere in the country, why not Balham?

In concluding my brief remarks, let me say that it is always best for Governments of whatever colour to be generous and magnanimous. As you will know, Mr Speaker, in this place generosity is often abused but never despised. My plea to Government as we go forward is for them please to be generous in their approach to the Opposition Benches. They will be on the side of the angels if they are.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and the members of his Committee for their sterling work during this Parliament. Backbench Business allows Members on both sides of the House to raise issues of importance to our constituents that might not be the subject of Government legislation. I take careful note of his point about the scheduling of general debates in the next Parliament, which I will consider carefully.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Today I will desist from eviscerating Veolia, but I hope, electorate willing, to be returned on 8 June to pursue this appalling company on the Floor of the House. Shortly after that, Mr Speaker, I will ask you whether you have received the apology you requested from the company a few weeks ago for misleading me, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

Does the Leader of the House agree that, early in the next Parliament, the Procedure Committee needs to revisit Standing Order No. 122A to ensure that it reflects the reality of contested elections for Select Committee Chairs and the expectation of the House that those elected into such roles will serve the full term of the Parliament in which they are elected?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question, which gave me the unexpected opportunity to study Standing Order No. 122A and the associated Standing Orders of the House. I concede that the Standing Orders relating to the election of Select Committee Chairs are capable of being construed in a number of different ways. It seems to me that the way forward is for the Procedure Committee in the new House of Commons, when it is constituted, to take the issue away, to examine the current Standing Orders, to consult across the parties in the House and to come back with recommendations in due course.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Charles Walker.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Oh sorry, Mr Speaker, you took me by surprise!

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman was standing and seeking to catch my eye, his expression of incredulity is perhaps a tad misplaced.

[Mr Walker]

And as I am only the Chair of the Procedure Committee, these things are lost on me!

May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership in relation to its possible misuse of £6.5 million of public money to promote and ease a planning application on behalf of Veolia? The relationship between Veolia, the LEP, Hertfordshire County Council, the relevant planning authority and the owner of the Veolia contract is too close to carry the confidence of my constituents.

[Mr Lidington]

As always, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully on behalf of his constituents. I note that he has been successful in securing an Adjournment debate on Thursday 23 March, so I am sure that he will pursue those arguments then.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The right hon. Lady makes a good point. It is important not just in the context of Brexit, but in terms of getting the right mix of transport services in this country, that we continue to modernise our rail system. The autumn statement’s focus on additional infrastructure spending will indeed deliver rail improvements in all parts of the country.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of Veolia, an organisation full of sharp suits and sharp practices? This company is promoting an incinerator in my constituency on a floodplain that just 18 months ago it was arguing before the planning inspector was unsuitable for such a site. This is disgraceful and, dare I say, dishonest behaviour on the part of this company.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes his points powerfully, and I am sure on behalf of his constituents. This is obviously a matter for the local planning authorities, and for the Environment Agency as the custodian of environmental regulations. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate on it.

Private Members’ Bills

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s second report of this Session on Private Members’ Bills and if he will provide time for that report to be debated.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

The Procedure Committee published its report last Tuesday, 18 October. In my evidence to the Committee last Wednesday, 19 October, I said that the Government were considering the report and intended to respond in detail within the normal two-month timeframe. I am happy to confirm that commitment to the House today.

[Mr Walker]

I thank the Leader of the House for his answer. Too often on Fridays, when we have private Members’ Bills, this House bleeds. It bleeds credibility and it bleeds standing. The Government are well aware of that fact. The Procedure Committee has been trying for the past three years to bring its concerns to the attention of the House and to gain Government support for some of our modest recommendations to restore some credibility and some faith in the process.

Our recommendations—the Committee’s recommendations —would not necessarily mean that what happened this past Friday would not happen again, but they would demonstrate to the public that we in this place, Back Benchers, take legislation seriously and we take Back-Bench legislation seriously. The truth is that, without the will on behalf of the Government to change Fridays, we will still have too many days when we leave this place downcast and somewhat ashamed at the proceedings that have gone on before us.

We have a listening and concerned Leader of the House. I hope that he will receive our recommendations in a positive way and accept some small part of them, particularly that part that would allow the Backbench Business Committee to assign up to the first four private Members’ Bill slots to Members. That would encourage serious legislators in this place to invest time and energy, working with one another for a year or more, to come up with a legislative proposition that, if it did not command the support of the House, would at least demand the attention of the House when it was brought before it.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has provided a succinct summary of some of the key recommendations of his Committee’s report. He has campaigned strongly and honourably for procedural changes to try to enhance the status of Friday debates on private Members’ Bills. I gave him an undertaking in an evidence session with his Committee last week that the Government would look seriously at his Committee’s most recent report. Clearly, we will need both to consider his recommendations and to have collective discussion in the Government before publishing our response, but that we will do.

Business of the House

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What always slightly puzzles me is that although Labour was in power for 13 years and brought through House of Lords reform, it did not address the issue on which Labour Members are calling for change. I think we all admit that there was something curiously quaint about the Liberal Democrat electorate of three, but of course one has to cut them a bit of slack because there are so few of them these days. My view is that there are pressing issues facing this country, and dealing with the Lib Dem electorate of three is probably not at the top of the list.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the London licensed taxi trade? Black cab drivers in my constituency offer a lot more to London and their community than Uber does.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, in a free market London taxi drivers do face challenges, but I believe they are the best in the world and bring something of immense value to our city. I do not believe that in anything that any of us does in politics, at this level or at a London level, would we ever wish to jeopardise their future.

Notification of Arrest of Members

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

In the previous Parliament, the Procedure Committee was asked to look into the existing protocols around the arrest of Members of Parliament. We started preliminary inquiries in early 2015, and this work laid the foundation for the inquiry we launched shortly after the general election.

The findings of the inquiry were unanimously endorsed by the Committee, which reported to the House in December. I know that our moderate and proportionate recommendations relating to the arrest of Members have created a great deal of faux sound and fury in various quarters. On Monday morning, I had to smile at the assertion by Kevin O’Sullivan, a Mirror journalist, on Sky Television, that

“they should very much be named because everyone else is… that’s always been the system. Once you are arrested, you can be named”.

That was an enlightening observation for two reasons: first, because it was completely wrong, and secondly and more interestingly, because it gave a revealing insight into the conduct of too many national newsrooms and their own morality when it comes to obtaining information from public officials.

I accept that the media have a job to do, and that includes making our lives difficult, so my greatest disappointment in the reporting on the Committee’s proposals is reserved for Sir Alistair Graham, the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. From his pejorative comments about our report, it is clear either that he has not read it or, if he has read it, that he has no appreciation of, or regard for, the law. I know that Sir Alistair’s time in the chair from 2004 to 2007 was not a happy one. During his three years in office, he felt deeply aggrieved that at no stage did the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agree to his repeated requests for a meeting. I accept that the then PM was perhaps churlish in his refusal to meet him, but I gently ask Sir Alistair to pursue his grievance with the former Prime Minister, as opposed to taking his frustrations out on the House of Commons, which had no hand in his disappointment. On a personal note, it is sad to see a distinguished former public servant and knight of the realm allowing himself to be turned into little more than a misinformed talking head.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Procedure Committee is not asking for Members of Parliament to receive special treatment in the eyes of the law. Such a request, if made, would be alien to the values of our Committee and to the wishes of our constituents. All of us on the Committee believe that the law should be applied equally to all citizens of the United Kingdom, but currently that is not the case in this House, where, in matters of policing and public order, the point of public notification occurs not at the point of charge, as is the case with our constituents, but at the point of arrest.

That process of notification puts the police and the House at odds with the Data Protection Act and, potentially, article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Regardless of how people feel about the application of data protection and ECHR laws, that exposes both this House and the police to legal challenge by a named Member of Parliament.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Is it not the truth that this practice is an historical anachronism arising from the period of the titanic struggle between the monarchy and the legislature, when, at a time when the King would arbitrarily arrest Members of Parliament, it was quite proper for Parliament to be so advised of that happening? It has no place in a modern Parliament and a modern democracy.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I shall now go on to answer.

In brief, the House has five choices. Option 1, as set out in our report, is to ensure that the law of the land is applied equally to Members of Parliament as it is to our constituents. Option 2 is for the House to retain the status quo, thereby knowingly putting itself and the police on the wrong side of the law. Option 3 is for the Home Secretary to amend schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to specifically exempt Members of Parliament from its universal protections, which in itself would create a precedent for a two-tier system tier of justice—the very thing our constituents do not want.

Option 4 is to amend primary legislation, so that the names of all suspects are released by the police at the point of arrest, not at the point of charge. Of course, that would be welcomed by the press, as it would aid it in its pursuit of celebrities and other people of interest, but it would be devastating for those tens of thousands of people who are arrested but never charged with any crime.

Option 5 is for the House to abandon privilege in respect of our parliamentary duties in the hope that no future despot would want to detain us from them on trumped-up political charges. Of course, if we follow that route, tonight’s entire debate would be a dead letter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When the Anglo-Irish agreement was signed by Margaret Thatcher in 1985, Unionists were enraged because it totally ignored them. Unionists at all levels, including then Members of this House—this was before my time—were involved in a campaign of civil disobedience and a then MP was arrested in that campaign. Was any consideration given to those examples of civil disobedience?

[Mr Walker]

When people engage in civil disobedience, they tend to want to have it reported, so that would not be covered. They would be charged, and of course, at the point of charge, it becomes public information. Of the people who took part in those protests, I think that 10 individuals—on 13 separate occasions—were imprisoned.

Of the five options I have outlined, the Procedure Committee opted for option 1, as we generally think it is a good idea for the laws of the land to be obeyed by the Parliament that creates them. Indeed, that is the minimum expectation that our constituents have of us, so I am amazed that some colleagues are tying themselves up in knots about this modest proposal.

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

In the unlikely circumstance that a Government less benign than the current one were to have a Member arrested on a trumped-up charge, would that Member have the right to insist that Mr Speaker brought it to the attention of the House?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That Member would have the right, but if it were judged to be a matter of privilege, the Clerk would advise the Speaker and the arrest would be placed in the public domain. That is what would happen.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for a second go. Is my hon. Friend saying that if the House has a chance to ascertain whether it is a breach of privilege, the Member concerned will also have the right to insist on it being made public by Mr Speaker?

[Mr Walker]

All Members, if arrested, will continue to have the right to have their names made public if that is what they choose to do, but it will not be automatic. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.

If adopted, the proposed changes will mean that Members of Parliament subject to arrest will not automatically have details of that arrest published by the House. This change gives them only the same rights to privacy as are enjoyed by any other citizen—not enhanced rights, but equal rights. In accordance with standard police practice and privacy laws, the names of arrested Members will not be put into the public domain by the House unless the Member consents. The exception will be in cases where you, Mr Speaker, have been advised by the Clerk of the House that a Member has been detained for reasons connected to his or her role as a Member of Parliament. A recent example was the arrest of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when his parliamentary office and home office were raided by the police in 2008.

The Committee’s report sets out the ambition that the arrest of a Member of Parliament still be notified to the Police Chief Superintendent of this House within 24 hours. However, we recognise that in circumstances where there is a live investigation, the police will not be in a position always to meet this ambition. In those circumstances, we hope that the details of an arrest will be provided as soon as operationally possible. For the avoidance of all doubt, should an arrested Member subsequently be charged with an offence, it is expected that in line with existing police practice, details of the name and charge would be published by the police force responsible at the time of charge.

In conclusion, the new arrangements detailed in the Committee’s report and outlined here this evening do not, of course, affect the duties of police forces to notify relevant authorities of safeguarding risks under the common law police disclosure scheme, which was introduced in August 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate. I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) missed my speech, because I think I did answer most of the questions he raised. I hope I answered the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), as I tried to do so twice.

The hon. Gentleman talks about creating another law for Members of Parliament. No, what we are doing is bringing Members of Parliament in line with the law—the law that governs our constituents. I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). He is a fantastic orator, and whatever he has to say, I always enjoy listening to it, so I thank him for being here this evening.

Let me try to answer the shadow Deputy Leader of the House’s questions. There were quite a lot of them and I am not very good at writing very quickly. If I fail to answer any of them, she can come back in. First, I wish to draw the House’s attention to “Erskine May’s” first edition. It records the case in 1815 of a Member

“convicted of a conspiracy”

and

“committed to the King’s Bench Prison.”

He escaped custody and took refuge in the Chamber of the old House of Commons, on the Government Front Bench, where the prison “marshal” found him and took him back into custody—rearrested him. Even though the marshal had come right into the House, albeit when it was not sitting, to take the Member into custody, the committee of privileges found that no breach of privilege had occurred. This measure is not to protect us; privilege has never protected us from being arrested for criminal activities, and it is a myth to suggest otherwise.

If a Member is arrested and chooses to tell the House of his or her arrest, or chooses to the tell the media of it, they are perfectly entitled to do that. What we are suggesting—what this report suggests and puts to the House—is that there is no automatic notification of the arrest of a Member, in line with the rights that extend to all of our constituents.

Let me just say something about social media. We cannot govern social media, but a lot of what appears on social media is hearsay and gossip. Let us also not forget that the media in this country have been very good at extracting information illegally, through the payment of cash to public officials, and some of those public officials have gone to prison for that. Both the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Home Secretary recently wrote to the College of Policing, reiterating the fact that police officers must not under any circumstances, unless it is to do with safeguarding, release the name of an individual on arrest. Details of their age can be given, but not their name.

Many people mistakenly believe that the point of arrest happens towards the end of an investigation. Actually, it does not. It happens very early on in an investigation. Indeed, someone could present themselves voluntarily to a police station to be arrested and then be released on bail. The Deputy Leader of the House asks where this would have made a difference in recent times. There were three arrests notified to the House between 2011 and 2014 where this would have made a difference. In reality, it probably would have made a difference in only two of the arrests, because one of the acts for which the individual was arrested was committed in public, in the precinct of this House, so it was seen and reported by many people.

There were two colleagues—one in 2011 and one in 2014—who were arrested. Their names appeared on the front of national newspapers and they suffered huge reputational damage. In both those cases no charges were brought. It would not make a huge difference to a lot of people, but it would certainly make a difference to some people in this House.

On circulating the procedures, there is a protocol attached to our report and that will be circulated by the Clerk of the House and those who work in his office to police constables across the country. That will happen only when—and if—this House approves the motion here this evening.

The hon. Lady asked when privilege would have applied, and I gave an example in my speech. There was clearly the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) whose offices on the precinct of the House of Commons and at home were entered by the police. That would have been a matter of privilege, but it would not be for me to determine whether that encroached on privilege, but a matter for the Clerk, in discussion with the Speaker and the legal counsel. That is the best example.

The hon. Lady also asked why there were no reports for 30 years—between 1978 and 2008. It was probably because this process fell into disuse—it is nothing more sinister than that. The reason that more arrests were reported goes back to what happened in 2008 when the police entered the precinct of the House of Commons without any advance notification. The Serjeant at Arms at the time was rather taken by surprise. It was a bit of a procedural disaster. An edict then went from the Speaker’s Chair, saying that we need to be notified of action. The police being diligent then started notifying the Chair of all arrests and actions, and that is where the difficulty arose.

I have some scribbled notes here. I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Lady’s questions. There is still the ECHR question, and there has been some gentle chiding of the Leader of the House. I did say in my speech that, regardless of what we think about the ECHR—whether we like it or love it—regardless of what we think about data protection—whether we like it, love it, or tolerate it—the truth of the matter is that, as of today, they are the law of the land. As I said in my speech, we have a duty in this place to obey the law of the land. I know that some people have a great conscience and sometimes take part in demonstrations and get arrested. When they do get arrested, they want that to be in the public eye because that is part of their action. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for example, was recently arrested, but that was very much in the public eye. I hope that I have answered most of the questions put to me by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is worth emphasising this point, because we had quite an incendiary speech from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and we need to nail this argument on the head. As a member of the Procedure Committee, with its Chairman sitting next to me, I can say that no extra privilege of any sort is being given to any Member of Parliament. We are being put on exactly the same level as members of the public.

[Mr Walker]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. He is right—no Member of this House is above the law, but likewise no Member of this House is below the law. We have to be equal in the eyes of the law, and that is what this report tries to do.

Question put and agreed to.