Recall of MPs Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The Government’s demeanour throughout the debates on the Bill, if I may put it in this way, has been that we are open to facilitating the development of amendments and proposals that either House can debate. In conversations, I have been open to allowing officials to advise on the kinds of proposals that may or may not work legally. I see no reason why that should not continue. It is important to be clear that such proposals cannot carry the guarantee of a Government amendment, but I am happy to use my offices and those of my ministerial colleagues to have those conversations.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I urge the Minister not to listen too much to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for the simple reason that there is a fundamental flaw in his proposals: we would be asking a court to make a judgment on whether such a petition should go forward on remarkably subjective terms. Each of the terms in his proposals—“trivial”, “vexatious”, “brought for party political purposes”, “misconduct”, “trust”—is entirely subjective and is surely not good enough for a court to be able to assess.

[Greg Clark]

I said a few moments ago that it had not been possible, in good faith, for the Government to recommend an amendment that the House could responsibly be invited to support. Since further amendments or developments of the Bill are a matter for the House I will ensure that advice and help is provided, but these matters must be considered and there is no guarantee that a form can be found that avoids the practical difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s more fundamental point is a matter for this House and the other place, and any amendments would return to this House to be determined.

Let me set out some of the challenges in the new clauses, although some have been expressed already. The definition of misconduct is based on the common law offence in England and Wales, but its test is not just the criminal offence. As drafted, it could capture behaviour that would not be a criminal offence, including in an MP’s private affairs, and it would be for the court to judge whether certain behaviour in a Member’s private life amounted to misconduct. The election court would have to apply the test of whether the MP had committed

“misconduct to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust”.

I understand and appreciate the aim of linking misconduct to an MP’s standing in the eyes of the public, but as drafted it is a rather subjective test. The House will want to take a view on the kinds of evidence and analysis that a court might draw on to judge whether the public at large felt there had been a betrayal of trust, including where no criminal offence was alleged to have been committed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.

[Chris Bryant]

I will restrict my comments to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others.

In the first round of these debates a few weeks ago, I supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) because I wanted a fuller system of recall that gave voters the opportunity to decide when a recall should be advanced, rather than keeping such decisions entirely within the House. At the time, I recognised the honest and honourable endeavour of the hon. Member for Cambridge and others in his party to find another way of opening up that gate, were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park to fail.

I must say, however, that I have profound misgivings about the new clause. First, many of the terms are imprecise. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that they were all common- law terms. That is true, but we are putting common-law terms in statute law, and quite often that leads to a difficult situation for courts and judges to provide decisions around. It gets much more complicated in that kind of environment, because they are looking for a steer—what did Parliament really intend by putting a common-law term into statute law?

For instance, new clause 3(5) sets out the condition that

“the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—

(a) not supported by the evidence”.

I think that is a fairly readily understandable concept; however, subsection (5) continues:

“or…trivial or vexatious in nature”.

I would suggest that they are two different categories and have generally been treated differently in common-law decision making. Yes, there is case law that relates to that—sometimes the court has said to the Crown Prosecution Service, “I’m sorry, this should not be considered because it is inadequately serious.” However, it is difficult to import that into this kind of decision.

Then we have the phrase

“brought for party political purposes”.

I cannot conceive of a political argument that I have not advanced for a party political purpose. Maybe that makes me immensely partisan—[Interruption]—although I think that every Member who just said, “You said it,” or, “Hear, hear,” was being partisan in the very way they advanced that argument, or at least one could argue that. That is my central point: anybody could argue that any argument was being made for a party political or not for a party political purpose. Guessing what was in the minds of the 500 people who brought the case—500 minds, incidentally, that the court would have to consider in deciding whether something had been done for party political purposes, not one mind—makes a bit of a mockery of that phrase.

There is also a problem with what, precisely, it is that the court is deciding that the Member would have done. New clause 3(4) says:

“The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted”—

I do not like that word for a start, which seems remarkably American in tone—

“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.”

It seems to me that it would be almost impossible ever to adjudicate on such a term. How does one know that the misconduct is of such a degree that the public’s trust in the MP could or should be abandoned? We might be able to determine whether it had been, but I cannot see how a court could determine that the misconduct was of such a degree that the public should have lost their trust in the Member of Parliament, even if they might not have done so, other than the 500 people before the court. And what is this “reasonable excuse”? The concept of “reasonable” is well used in the courts, but what about reasonable excuse? Normally, the reasons for appeal are presented in statute law; in this case it is just a “reasonable excuse,” and we cannot possibly arrive at a decision about what that might be.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right, but I am trying to be quick.

[Dr Huppert]

I do understand; it is a shame we could not have had these interactions earlier, during my speech. The wording is taken from the Attorney-General’s reference No. 3 of 2003, which says:

“The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.

The wording is already extant.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, and it is remarkably poorly used, for the simple reason that it is regularly taken to appeal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, I would be happy to give way to him, although I would probably be being generous with other people’s time rather than my own.

My argument is that these are imprecise terms. That is not a good way of legislating, not least because at the moment that a court decided that there had been misconduct such as that on which the hon. Gentleman wants it to decide and that none of the get-out clauses in new clause 3(5) applied, to all intents and purposes the court would have decided, in the public mind, that the Member of Parliament was guilty—end of story—and I cannot see how that would not affect whatever might happen in a subsequent recall.

I have one final problem with the drafting. I understand why the hon. Member for Cambridge has provided in subsection (7):

“Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”

That appears because several Members have pointed out that there is a problem: if the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament should be “impeached or questioned” in any court of law or any other place, it would be a bit rum for a court expressly to be told that it can go forward on the basis of whether or not an MP has “misconducted” themselves in a proceeding in Parliament. The new clause expressly says that one of the criteria that can be considered is “conduct”, whether it be as a Member of Parliament or not—completely and utterly irrelevantly.

I believe that there is a fundamental contradiction in the new clause. Under it, the court could decide that how somebody had spoken in Parliament or engaged in a proceeding in Parliament could be considered as relevant to a misconduct hearing. That would limit free speech, which we should guard jealously in this House, and, essentially, undo the Bill of Rights. It is a contradictory provision. For all those reasons, I could not support new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in a good deal of agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I came into this debate, most unusually, undecided as to how I was going to vote. No guidance was provided from the Whips about how I ought to vote, which I view as a great advance. It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that he is not trying to tell people how to vote. It shows a considerable wisdom to return to the traditional practice of having free votes on constitutional matters. I hope that this will be continued by other parties and in other Parliaments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says that I do anyway, and he is probably broadly right, but I think this should be encouraged across the House.

I was interested in new clauses 2 and 3. There is a need and desire to widen the ability for recall and to make it easier for constituents to remove Members of Parliament who they think have behaved improperly. The main thrust of the Bill is too narrow, which is a lost opportunity but not a fatal one because it can be developed in future Parliaments. Constitutional development often happens at a slow pace, which is not something I am against. I think we want constitutional reform to take place at a pace with which people are broadly comfortable and that carries the nation with it.

New clauses 2 and 3, however, fundamentally misfire. Instead of making this something that will be decided by the electorate, the provisions introduce a third party—the courts—to try to determine what the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out are fundamentally political issues. The restrictions to which he referred, particularly the third example where the misconduct case is “brought for party political” reasons, are a complete negation of what is being tried to be achieved. Any complaint must be brought for party political reasons, and any attempt to unseat a Member of Parliament is going to be carried out by somebody who has a party political affiliation of some kind, and it will be to the benefit of a political party to remove a Member of Parliament from another party. Even if the petition and process were started by some wonderfully high-minded figure, of which I am glad to say we have a very large number in North East Somerset, politicians would get involved in it because they would see the advantage, particularly if the Government had only a small majority, of removing a Member of Parliament or indeed of causing such inconvenience that would make it almost impossible for that Member of Parliament to continue in office.

Another issue involved is the legal costs. Are we to provide a fund to help Members of Parliament defend themselves in these circumstances, or do we find that the Member of Parliament could be bankrupted by the very process—to see whether he had committed misconduct in public office—and thus removed from Parliament anyway, even though the misconduct in public office could not, in the event, be proved?

We in this House have always sought to keep the courts out of our own proceedings. There seem to me to be two valid sets of people who can intervene in our proceedings: the general public who send us here, and who have an absolute right not to send us here but to send other people in our place; and our own systems, procedures and Committees, which are able to regulate internal goings-on in the House—a right that we declared long before we achieved it in the Bill of Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I am still discussing new clauses 2 and 3. I have not yet moved on to his amendments, towards many of which I am very sympathetic. What concerns me about the new clauses is that they would allow the courts to rule on what was going on in the House. It is very important to prevent that from happening, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. The courts are rightly reluctant to rule on what they believe to be fundamentally political decisions, and it seems to me that new clauses 2 and 3 would give them authority in regard to fundamentally political decisions, such as whether someone’s standard had been that of a decent Member of Parliament who had committed no offence.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that so reluctant are the courts—and rightly so—to judge on any proceedings in Parliament that when the court was considering whether Rebekah Brooks had ever paid a police officer for information, it was not allowed even to consider the fact that when asked on 11 March 2003, during a proceeding in Parliament, whether she had paid a police officer, she had said “Yes.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I happen to think that that is absolutely right, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. It is important that our proceedings allow people to be honest and to speak freely without incriminating themselves, and that must be a protection that we seek to maintain. I think that if we undermine it by bringing the courts into the details of the behaviour of Members of Parliament, we will fail. I would go in the opposite direction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would go the whole way and leave it to the British electorate. I would place my trust in them, and let them get on with it. But the worst of all solutions—worse even than a Committee of chums somewhere upstairs deciding that we have all behaved beautifully—is to involve the court system.

I also cannot agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which is rare, because I often do agree with him. He has proposed a “pledge” in new clause 4. I do not like the pledge. I think that it reads as a sort of bureaucratic announcement that we are all going to do good things, in that awful “speak” that is so common in conferences, about how you should be a leader and grab hold of your management skills, and all that waffle.

I do not like that at all. It does not accord with my vision of myself as a Member of Parliament. I think that Members of Parliament are here at the service of their constituents, and that their constituents will judge whether they are doing their job properly, rather than someone’s saying that they have not shown leadership. What on earth does “showing leadership” mean? If you are the Prime Minister it is easy, but what is a Back-Bench MP meant to do? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister always shows wonderful, clear, decisive leadership. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is cackling from his Front Bench. Many people think it is a pity that he did not show leadership by trying to become leader of the Scottish socialists, which would have been very welcome.

[Chris Bryant]

Or even the Scottish Labour party.