Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Julian Huppert

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Chris Bryant and Julian Huppert

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly making a point, but I am not sure that it is entirely the point. Justice systems all around the world make errors. The British justice system has convicted people, only for those convictions to be overturned on appeal. I do not claim that justice is perfect, but I do claim that an obsession with European issues weakens our focus on policing and crime, which are what we should be focusing on. I do not know the circumstances of the case the hon. Gentleman mentions, and it is entirely possible errors were made, but that does not mean we should not work with Europe or continue with the justice and home affairs co-operation we currently have.

[Chris Bryant]

I just wish to point out to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that when Russia tried to extradite a man from the UK for supposedly murdering a Russian Orthodox priest, the said Russian Orthodox priest gave evidence in the case in London, thereby proving he had not been murdered.

[Dr Huppert]

I would be delighted to pass that on, and I am sure the two hon. Gentlemen could have a separate conversation about the matter. There are a wealth of individual cases, some of which I looked at when I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but the obsession with Europe that runs through the Conservative party—or, to rephrase that, through many elements of the Conservative party—is deeply alarming. I am pleased we have managed to get sensible comments from Conservative Ministers on the Front Bench about our need to work with Europe. As crime becomes more international and people can travel more, it is important that we are able to share information.

If we were to ask the public whether they want criminals brought back here to face justice, I do not think many of them—other than the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—would immediately start talking about the powers of the ECJ. I simply do not believe that is the main issue.

We are not where we should be yet, however. We have this very odd, very convoluted, very complex process, and many of us think it would be much simpler if it had not been negotiated in the form that it was, with the very complex opt-out followed by an opt-in process. I do not think any Member would say that was the best way to proceed. It may or may not have been the best that could be achieved—I do not know the details—but it is certainly very complex, and I and my colleagues will be very happy to work with the Home Secretary and to keep the pressure on her to make sure the negotiations to opt back in are successful. That will be a complex and difficult task, however.

That is why it is also very important to make sure that nothing goes wrong. We do not want to end up accidentally not being able to get back into things we need to be in; for example, we do not want to end up having to be out of Europol for a brief period, which would mean that Europol director, Rob Wainwright—a Brit—could not continue in his role.

The Lords European Union Committee has conducted detailed scrutiny of this and has produced a detailed report. In April it concluded that it was not convinced a compelling case had been made to opt out. I have to say I agree with it. I think it would be far easier, far cleaner and far simpler not to exercise the opt-out at all. I would love to know how much is being spent in time, in effort and in getting a huge number of civil servants and lawyers to go through the details of all of this, and what the overall benefits would be.

It is absolutely true that, as many Members have said, some of the items under discussion are outdated or irrelevant, and that they simply do not matter. We should weigh that against the massive cost and the time that would be taken in this House and elsewhere in going through them all and making a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It always pains me to disagree with a man whom I love so much, but as the hon. Gentleman refused to return my phone calls at the end of last week, I must disagree with him on this one occasion. I think that there are genuine risks. This is what was said by the House of Lords Committee to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received we do not consider that the Government have made a convincing case for exercising the opt-out…Opting out of the police and criminal justice measures would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the United Kingdom and the administration of criminal justice in the United Kingdom.”

That is a high hurdle for us to overcome if we are to move forward.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) moving forward, but I will not take any more interventions, because we need to hear from the opting-in Justice Secretary.

There are many other risks in relation to the timetable. We do not know which commissioners will be responsible for the respective portfolios by the end of next year, we do not know who the President of the Commission will be, and we do not know what the majority pattern in the Commission will be. The European parliamentary elections will take place on 22 May. There will be a completely different system for the appointment of commissioners next year, and by 1 December we may well have a different Commission which will take a completely different view from the present one. Moreover, during today’s debate the Government themselves have admitted—and this has come steadily more to light—that there may well be an interim period between opting out and opting in, and I think that that poses a danger to all of us.

The Home Secretary tried to suggest that this represents the grand emancipation of Britain from the thralls of the European Union. I disagree with her. The end result will be, at best, our opting out from some 67 measures that already do not apply to the United Kingdom, have been superseded, or are completely redundant and irrelevant, and from another 30 measures in regard to which it is almost impossible to see how the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice could possibly have any effect on the European Union.

It is a delight to see the Justice Secretary. Let me end my speech with a little rejoicing. As all Members will know, there is more joy in heaven when one sinner repenteth…and that is certainly true in relation to the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome what he is about to say, because he said in 2009:

“Our instinct will always be against handing more sovereignty to Brussels unless there is a compelling reason to do so. That includes the arrest warrant.”

I am delighted to say that he has completely changed his view. The Command Paper points out that 5,184 people were arrested between April 2009 and April 2013, and that very few of them were British. I only hope that the Justice Secretary, in the process of renouncing his previous views, decides to welcome what was announced in the House of Lords this afternoon.

Phone Hacking

Debate between Chris Bryant and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on later to make some remarks, with which I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, about how we have all failed in this process. I believe that the whole political system has failed in this. I take my own share of the blame for that. I asked Rebekah Wade questions about this a long time ago, but in the end the whole of the political system in this country did not take action. Now is our chance to do so.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not keen to give way too often, as I am aware that many others want to speak.

This issue is not just about what went on at the News of the World; it is also about the behaviour of the Metropolitan police. In the course of the limited investigation of 2006, which led to the conviction of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, the police secured a vast amount of information. They could have—and, I believe, should have—interrogated that information so that it became evidence. They could have approached all those affected. They could have contacted the mobile phone companies to ensure their customers were better protected. Unfortunately, they did none of those things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

As I shall try to prove in my next few remarks, I think that that is absolutely essential. My hope is that people who committed criminality at the News of the World will end up going to prison. The last thing I want is for the debate, or any inquiry, to hamper the police investigation or any possible prosecution. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if Members do not mind. Many others wish to speak.

I know that there are those who argue that there cannot be a public inquiry during an ongoing investigation—and I noted the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, when he seemed to vacillate in relation to when that process could or could not start—but I think they are wrong. Indeed, I consider it vital for the police investigation to be supplemented by a public inquiry. First, some of the issues that need to be addressed may not be criminal, but they do strike at the heart of what an ethical code for the media should look like in this country. Secondly, although I have confidence in the officers who are conducting the Weeting investigation, I fear that the rug could be pulled from under their feet at any moment, and there is no certainty about when their investigations will be completed. By the time they are done, many of those involved may have left the scene or, more worryingly, shredded the evidence—or, of course, discovered selective amnesia.

That is why it is vital that an inquiry be set up as soon as possible and as soon as practicable, led by a judge with full powers to summon witnesses who must give evidence under oath. Of course the inquiry should not sit in public until the investigations are complete—I hope that that answers the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—but an astute judge can easily manage the relationship between a police investigation and an inquiry, prepare evidence, and secure witnesses without compromising any criminal investigation or prosecution.

I am confident that the Prime Minister agrees with that. After all—as was mentioned earlier—a year ago today he announced an inquiry, to be led by Sir Peter Gibson, into allegations of the torture of detainees. He appointed two other members to it, and said that he hoped it would start by the end of last year and be completed within a year. Indeed, he expressly pointed out that he was setting up the inquiry despite the fact that criminal investigations were still ongoing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Lord Chancellor—and Foreign Secretary, and holder of many other posts besides—has received a letter about the Gibson inquiry which makes the position very clear. It states:

“The Inquiry has not yet started as we are still awaiting the conclusion of two related police investigations into the Security Service and SIS.”

None the less, says the letter, “preparatory matters” are in hand. That is precisely what I believe should happen in this case.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

It is important to remember that, with the exception of the two independents—another example of how I would not have designed the system—the majority of panel members will be democratically elected, representing their councils in their system. They are not directly democratically elected, but they are indirectly democratically elected. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, the model in London is a two-thirds majority for scrutiny of a democratically elected individual, so I am more comfortable with two thirds. That does not make a huge difference for a typically sized panel, which will have 12 people. We said in Committee that the difference will be between nine votes and eight votes, but it is more useful to look at it the other way. In order to stop the veto, the commission would have to get four or five people either to vote with him or not to be there. That makes a bigger difference as the panel gets bigger.

The structure of the new clause is more positive than has been described, because it leans towards trying to have sensible discussions and negotiations. It starts with a commissioner making a proposal. Then the panel looks at the proposal and comments on it, before the commissioner works out what he will do. Unless it is vetoed, the precept is set, but if it is vetoed, it does not go to a referendum straight away. Ultimately, that is something that we are all trying to avoid, because of the associated costs of running unnecessary referendums and the risk of re-billing, which is a particular problem with this issue and capping. There is then another opportunity, over 14 days, for the two sides to negotiate and see whether they can come to a more sensible arrangement that works for both of them. Only if that is not possible is a further step taken.

That step is not about saying, “Secretary of State, tell us what to do. It’s up to you.” It is about saying that what should be done is up to local people. It is up to the commissioner to set one option and the panel to set another, and then the public will decide which they prefer. That is a much more appropriate way of doing things. The panel would act responsibly when it came to cost, with the exception of the independents, who do not have that responsibility and are a piece of undemocratic grit in the system. However, it will be local decision making that makes a difference. Local people should have a say in how their precept should be set and how their policing should be run. That is what I would like to see. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has moved the new clause for discussion, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It feels as though I have entered a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, which is where I was yesterday, but I am not going to talk about the Metropolitan police in quite the same way today.

I sympathise with some of the arguments about localism which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who spoke in favour of the new clause, but I say to them that, although there may be a natural constituency in some police authorities, in many there is not. In the South Wales police area, for instance, it is not easy to conceive of a single constituency of interest. The area does not exist in any other denomination, as it were, and it crosses local authority boundaries, brings together Swansea and Cardiff, which is something extraordinary in itself, and brings the valleys together with two of the three big cities of south Wales, so it would be very difficult to come to a really local idea.

The new clause is primarily about money, however, so I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I realise that he may not be able to answer this evening, but I hope that he will write to me on some of these matters, because they are—in relation to chapter 6, in particular—quite important.

The Bill partially determines the way in which somebody is elected, but there is a great deal more work to be done on exactly how the electoral system will work—for precisely the reason that I mentioned: the constituencies do not exist. New constituencies are being created, and we need to ensure that, in terms of how elections are managed, there is some consistency within the constituency that we create. I just wonder whether—