Recall of MPs Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) might choose to address herself to this debate in a different way.

I have not signed the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, although I happen to agree with him. I want to raise two issues that he still has not addressed sufficiently. First, 5% is a very small number. He suggested that he might accept a higher number on Report. Would he be prepared to accept 10% or 15%? Secondly, some of us think that the financial provisions are not tough enough in the Bill or in law. Will he support further amendments at a later stage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

To be fair, the Prime Minister could not follow the right hon. Gentleman’s logic when he was a member of the shadow Cabinet.

To reiterate the Opposition’s position, recall must be based on a measure of wrongdoing. It cannot happen just because a group of constituents, or a well funded vested interest group, seek to remove a Member of Parliament because they disagree with them.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is trying to grasp a complicated matter. The Bill of Rights makes it absolutely clear that no proceeding in Parliament should be questioned or impeached by any court of law or any other place. Unless we change the Bill of Rights, it seems difficult to allow a court or another body outside Parliament to judge what a Member may or may not have done in the proceeding in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend’s proposed Standards Committee, which he wants to make more independent, meet that same rule?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

It is difficult, and as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the common law offence of misconduct in public office has been subject to scrutiny over recent years. Indeed, the Law Commission is studying it right at this moment to see whether it could be put on to a statutory basis, which might provide a better definition. Curiously enough, however, one of the attractions of the offence for this purpose is its lack of definition, because all I am trying to do is define the things that fall short of fraud, assault and battery or whatever, but that nevertheless clearly constitute improper behaviour in the conduct of a Member of Parliament.

What I am seeking to do is put the matter in the hands of the public, not MPs, so that there is a third trigger in the process. I am trying to ensure an objective test, which is applied in two ways. First, misconduct in public office is a recognisable offence. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) said, it is one that the English courts understand—I will come back to the problem with the other jurisdictions in a moment. Then, using a court that is understood—the election court, which is established under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides for two High Court judges in England and Wales, two judges of the High Court of Northern Ireland or two judges of the Court of Session in Scotland—the matter would be assessed.

That would put Members of Parliament in the same position as other public servants, which is an important signal in itself. Notwithstanding the need for protection under the Bill of Rights, I do not see why we as Members of Parliament should not be in a different position from other public servants in other respects. I have also drafted my amendments so as to automatically provide a filter for claims that are trivial, vexatious or clearly simply party political in nature, rather than genuine claims of misconduct.

What are the difficulties with my proposal? There are two really big drafting difficulties that I encountered in trying to put it together. I think I am reasonably adept at drafting parliamentary amendments, but I have to say that these were significant problems. One problem is exactly the point that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made. We are talking about English common law and there is not a directly comparable offence of any kind in Scotland. I looked in vain for a common law offence in Scotland, and the nearest I could find was breach of duty, which is not the same as the common law offence in England. That is why there has to be a slightly, I would say, circumlocutory approach—perhaps that is not the right expression, but it is certainly complex—in that the courts would be asked to adjudicate on the offence as though it were committed in England, irrespective of where it was committed by the Member. I accept that that is a difficulty, and I would like better constitutional lawyers than I am to have a look and find a more elegant way of achieving the same objective.

[Chris Bryant]

It seems to me that there is another problem. The Crown Prosecution Service says clearly in its guidance on misconduct in public office:

“The suspect must not only be a ‘public officer’”—

not as straightforward to define as it seems—but that

“the misconduct must also occur when acting in that capacity.”

When does an MP act in the capacity of an MP except when proceeding in Parliament, which is the one thing that the hon. Gentleman wants to preclude?

[Mr Heath]

That is another precise difficulty in the drafting that I foresaw. If the hon. Gentleman looked at my new clause—there are so many tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that I cannot find it at the moment. [Interruption.] Yes, new clause 7, which states:

“The court may consider such conduct whether or not it is committed in England and Wales, and whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.”

In other words, it deals with the Member of Parliament irrespective of that hazy definition of what the terms of contract of MPs are. I accept that this is a difficulty, however, and I do not want to pretend anything other than that these are difficult issues. I hope the Committee will accept that this is a genuine attempt to find a solution to a very difficult problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Chris Bryant]

I just wonder whether we might bear in mind Sidney Silverman and David Steel, who both courageously advanced causes that were considered to be very unpopular at the time. They both represented marginal seats, and I would argue that they kept their seats because they were prepared to say uncomfortable things.

[Mr Jones]

I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend says is correct, but I will explain in a minute why they would not have kept their seats if there had been recall, because a small and vociferous minority could have removed them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has given you some timekeeping assistance through his suggestions, and I shall try not to fall foul of that.

As the group includes many amendments and new clauses, I shall say something about the overall choice facing the Committee that is embodied by the measures, before giving the Government’s assessment of each, which I hope will help the Committee. If there is time, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), will make a speech at the end of the debate, so colleagues who speak after me will have an opportunity to hear a reaction to their remarks.

As I explained on Second Reading, the Bill has had a difficult history. Some people are against it—and indeed against anything that introduces a system for recalling MPs. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee concluded of the draft Bill:

“We do not believe that there is a gap in the House’s disciplinary procedures which needs to be filled by the introduction of recall.”

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made a similar point. Others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), believe that we should adopt an entirely different model of recall: one that is not triggered by proven misconduct, but can instead be initiated by a petition of the electorate for any reason at any time.

That disagreement could lead one to suppose that the Government’s Bill is just another contribution to a debate without consensus, and that it has no greater or lesser significance than any other approach, but that would not be right. The Bill is fundamentally different from the approach of no recall, or that of recall for any reason at any time, although I hesitate to tease my hon. Friend by referring to that as the Martini recall—any time, any place, anywhere. The Bill as drafted implements completely and faithfully the promises that the main parties made in their manifestos at the general election. The Conservative manifesto promised that

“a Conservative government will introduce a power of ‘recall’ to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.”

The Labour manifesto said:

“MPs who are found responsible for financial misconduct will be subject to a right of recall if Parliament itself has failed to act against them.”

The Lib Dem manifesto said:

“We would introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a by-election for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing.”

The coalition agreement reflected those positions.

As drafted, the Bill would cause a recall petition to be triggered if an MP was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to a year or a suspended sentence of any length—hon. Members will know that disqualification is already automatic following immediate imprisonment of more than a year—or, in other words, if serious wrongdoing was proved; or if an MP was suspended by the House for at least 21 sitting days, or 28 continuous days, which again would indicate proven serious wrongdoing. Members will of course consider carefully all the amendments that have been tabled, but it is only reasonable to observe that both other views, whatever their merits, do not implement the particular commitments that all parties made to the electorate at the previous election.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister for how he is presenting his argument as, ironically enough, debates in the House are often most fractious when there is the smallest difference between people. However, I suggest that the flaw in his argument is his reliance on the words “misconduct” and “wrongdoing” which, under the Bill, will be determined only by MPs. That is the problem for many members of the public, as they would like to be able to decide what constitutes wrongdoing and misconduct.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman expresses his reasonable and important point well. As I said on Second Reading, I do not take the view that the Bill cannot be strengthened. One thing we can conclude from the Second Reading debate is that we will want to reflect, in Committee and during the Bill’s later stages, on the public’s involvement. The Bill can be improved and clarified, and I repeat my personal assurance that the Government will be open to reflecting improvements in the Bill during its passage.

Amendment 42, a cross-party amendment that was ably spoken to by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—although he is my hon. Friend, he has the demeanour of a right hon. Member—proposes a constituent-led trigger for recall, albeit one based on misconduct. That important suggestion has much to commend it, so I will reflect carefully on the amendment. Similarly, the Opposition have suggested making the trigger more sensitive and sending the clear message that the criminal abuse of the parliamentary expenses system should trigger recall, and I appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife spoke to those proposals. While my colleagues and I will vote to maintain the balance that the Bill as drafted strikes, and for a faithful adherence to the manifesto on which we stood, it might well be possible for us to support changes on Report. That demeanour is an appropriate response to today’s proceedings and last week’s Second Reading debate, given that no overwhelming case has been made at this stage for sending the Bill back to the drawing board and starting again.