2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I rise on behalf of the Liaison Committee and the Justice Committee, both of which I chair, to speak to amendment (b), which I can do very much more briefly now that the Justice Secretary has indicated that it will be accepted, although I need to explain why we tabled it. It takes something, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, to bring together on matters European the right hon. Gentleman and myself, whose views are not so different on these issues, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). That arose from the way in which the Government have gone about this process, which is not the way that they said they would go about it. However, in two moves—in a two-step—over the past five days, the Government have sought to respond to our concerns, and I very much welcome that.

The original change that was made last week was specifically to endorse the role of Select Committees in considering the Government’s proposals as to which measures we should opt back into. The reason that we were not happy with the wording which then emerged, which was a considerable improvement on the Government’s first motion, was that it appeared to us that the words would restrict the Committees’ ability to argue for the inclusion of measures not on the list or the exclusion of measures that were on the list. Our understanding had been that specific confirmation of the list was a matter for the second debate and vote, after the Committees had considered the issues raised by the Government’s statement of what they were minded to do on the various opt-in possibilities.

[Chris Bryant]

As I understand it, in that meeting the Home Secretary asserted that it was absolutely essential—legally necessary—that there be a vote today to allow the opt-out to happen. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that really to be the case?

[Sir Alan Beith]

There has been argument about that from two Members who devote a great deal of time to the issue and I am reluctant to become the arbiter of this argument. All we sought to secure in our capacity as Committee Chairs was that the Committees’ ability to do the job was not inhibited and could not be restricted by someone pointing to the wording and saying, “You can’t discuss that possibility. It’s outwith your reach.” What the Government had made clear all along and made clear again to me in a telephone call last week while I was away with the Justice Committee was that there is to be a second-stage process as originally envisaged, and at that stage there will be confirmation of what is at present clear Government policy as to what the list is, following consideration of the representations and views that may be put forward by any of the relevant Committees.

I do not believe that in seeking to meet the Committees’ wishes and excluding those words, the Government are seeking to change their policy. They are simply making it clear that the procedure is an open one in which Committees can put forward their representations, whether they support the list or seek variations in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

We have an end of consideration date at the end of October, which is clear in the motion and emerged from discussions between Committee Chairs and the Government. It was not our ideal timetable, which would have started back in February, but that is where we are now.

What we have to consider now is how best the Select Committees can do their job in drawing the attention of the House and the Government to any concerns they might have about opt-ins that are on the list and opt-outs—or not-opt-ins, if that is the right phrase—that they might wish to consider. It is for the Committees, as Ministers have confirmed, to decide how they will go about this task, but a timetable has been set.

There is still more information which can usefully be given to Committees in the form of a more detailed impact assessment than is contained, for example, in the Command Paper. We are entitled to continue to seek that, and if we do not get it, awkward questions will be asked of Ministers when they come before the Committee, in order to elicit the information that we need. Our purpose, which will be fulfilled by the exclusion of these words, was to give the Committees of the House the scope to which they are entitled, which the Government from the beginning said they would have, in order to consider these matters before the final decision is made.

[Chris Bryant]

May I ask the Select Committee Chairman a question about how the three Committees will divvy up responsibilities? The Government have submitted not one memorandum but five—three from one Minister and one from each of the others. There might be confusion for the House if there were three reports that did not coincide.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Committees are well accustomed to dealing with overlap of responsibility. The Liaison Committee is also well accustomed to assisting in sorting out any problems that overlap may generate. There are issues that fall within Home Affairs which are of interest to the Justice Committee, such as Eurojust. We will find ways of dealing with that, even in a compressed time scale. I welcome the Government’s acceptance that in the letter as well as the spirit they should recognise that Select Committees of this House have a right and a duty to advise the House on the basis of open consideration without undue restriction.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

That is a further interesting point. The problem is there and we should not ignore it, and I think any wise parents would have to consider it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have had to consider it when he married. I would expect a couple from the royal family to exercise a lot of care and wisdom in making such a decision. However, we have to recognise that we are placing a potentially serious limitation on the children of a marriage such as we are considering, and giving their parents quite a dilemma.

[Chris Bryant]

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman away from the point about baptism? There is no such thing as Roman Catholic baptism or Anglican baptism: there is Christian baptism. No Church has ever suggested that there should be a rebaptism when somebody changes their religious denomination. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the bringing up of children, but it does not apply to baptism.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Absolutely, and had I decided to spend more time dealing with the argument put by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I would have looked into other questions such the significance of first communion at the age of eight or nine, for example, and whether someone would subsequently be allowed to renounce it. Most parents would prefer that such a position was not reached, but I refer to it because it is a real problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised another intriguing issue that could be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, although one that I think the Government might resist on the grounds that it would limit the powers of the sovereign in a family matter—it is a rather unique family situation. Most of us would like to have some influence over the choice of our children’s spouses, and some may feel that they have less influence than they would like, at least in the initial choice of boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, but the royal family is in a special situation and I think it would be reasonable of the Government to resist fettering the sovereign’s ability to exercise the six-person limitation provided for in the Bill. I understand why they might want to do so.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

No, no—I am not a Calvinist. I merely point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the provisions of the 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union is that the monarch, when accepting the Scottish throne, has to make a separate accession oath that guarantees the protection of the Church of Scotland. That is why I say that several provisions in law relate to the religion of the monarch. Section III of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch

“shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England”.

That is yet another provision.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Surely the position is that although the Church of Scotland is not and never has been established in the sense that the Church of England is, with a degree of parliamentary control, it is a national Church in Scotland and the Queen attends the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and takes communion within that Church. That is where her Scottish allegiance lies, rather than with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. I was not confusing the Church of Scotland with the Piscies, as it were—

Ministerial Statements

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The only response to that is, “Touché.” By definition, the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I wholeheartedly agree, that large parts of that autumn statement were pre-leaked over the weekend. Although I have my criticisms of what went on when we were in power, may I point out to hon. Members that the last Queen’s Speech was leaked? I do not think that that has ever happened before. Although you, Mr Speaker, investigated what happened—you can investigate what happens here—the Prime Minister, as far as I am aware, made no investigation into how that happened. That is a gross discourtesy to the House. In addition, figures from last year’s Budget were leaked. There is a danger that people have learned the lessons of our Government in the wrong way and are now exercising their powers incorrectly.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

In this particular respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice to the Government of whom he was a member. They decided, under a previous Prime Minister, to make it known what the Government’s main legislative intentions were much earlier than is traditional with the Queen's speech, which was a welcome change.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed we had a draft legislative programme, which we brought forward six months before the Queen’s speech, but that was presented to Parliament. It was not issued in a press release to the regional media or briefed to Andrew Marr. That is the process that we should adopt.

I want to raise one concern in relation to the motion. It says that, where a Member feels that the code has been broken—the ministerial code, which is written into a motion of the House as well; it is not just the Prime Minister’s ministerial code—the Member should report that to the Speaker, who would make a judgment and could then refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That is not the process that we have for other standards and privileges issues, or matters of privilege. At the moment, we write to you, Mr Speaker, and you decide whether we can have a debate on the matter. At the end of that, either it is decided to refer the matter without a Division, or there is a Division, so it becomes the decision of the House to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges; it is not your decision, Mr Speaker. There is a double anxiety here. The proposed process would bring you into deciding whether a Minister should be referred. That process of referral would probably mean that the Minister had to lose his job at that point, such would be the clamour among the press and so on. Equally, if you were to bring the matter to the House, the almost inevitable conclusion, given that Ministers by definition always enjoy a majority in the House, is that the matter would never be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Phone Hacking

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It pains me to say this as well, but the honest truth is that a lot of lies have been told to a lot of people. When police officers tell lies or at least half-truths to Ministers of the Crown so that Parliament ends up being misled, I think it amounts to a major constitutional issue for us to face. I hope that there will end up being a full investigation into that element and that we will come to the truth, but at the moment what hangs around is a very dirty smell. We need the Metropolitan police to be trusted—not just in London but across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we need to fight on this issue.

Did the reason that nothing happened have anything to do with the closeness between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World? After all, we know for a fact that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who was in charge of the investigation into the News of the World, now works for News International. We know that senior officers were wined and dined by senior News of the World executives at the very time, and occasionally on the very day, when they were making key decisions about whether any further investigation should proceed against that organisation. And we know that the News of the World paid police officers for information.

I say that categorically because, on 11 March 2003, in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I asked Rebekah Wade, as she then was—Rebekah Brooks, as she now is—whether she had paid police officers for information. She said:

“We have paid the police for information in the past.”

I asked:

“And will you do it in the future?”

She replied: “It depends.” Andy Coulson, who was sitting next to her, said:

“We operate within the code and within the law and if there is a clear public interest then we will.”

I said:

“It is illegal for police officers to receive payments.”

Mr Coulson said:

“No. I just said, within the law.”

I do not believe that it is possible to pay police officers “within the law.” That is suborning police officers, it is corruption, and it should stop.

In April this year, Rebekah Brooks was asked by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to clarify exactly what she had meant. She replied:

“As can be seen from the transcript, I was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information. My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers. If, in doing so, I gave the impression that I had knowledge of any specific cases, I can assure you that this was not my intention.”

[Laughter.] I see that the Attorney-General himself is smiling.

Even more worryingly, as we discovered only last night, News International has handed over copies of documents that appear to show that former editor Andy Coulson authorised a series of payments to police officers running into tens of thousands of pounds. That is News International saying, “Yeah but no but yeah but…” . The truth is, however, that News International was doing it, and cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know that the News of the World seems to be hanging Andy Coulson out to dry, but surely the buck stops at the top, and that is the chief executive.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can we also agree that, in our handling of this matter, we must not for a moment prejudice the possibility of successful prosecutions of people who did these things?

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Lord Beith

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It is a particular irony for those who advocate the alternative vote, as I do, which in the majority of situations will mean that an MP will have secured 50% of the vote—

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment. I am still dealing with this question. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is going to make a silly point, and I will let him make it in a couple of moments.

It is suggested that we are advancing a system that guarantees that the vast majority of MPs will have 50% of the vote—some of us already achieve that—but then it is said that that provision should be delivered on perhaps a 30% or 35% vote.

[Sir Alan Beith]

rose—

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) first, because he asked first.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful. If the hon. Gentleman loses the vote in the Commons tonight, does he think the unelected House is then morally entitled to defy the expressed will of this House?

[Chris Bryant]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have advocated an elected House of Lords for a very long time, and that is still my position. However, many people, including himself when he was on the Opposition Benches, have argued that the sagacity and wisdom of people down the other end of the building should sometimes be listened to. Whatever system we end up with for the two Chambers, I would simply say that as in most other countries in Europe that have a parliamentary system, there will be a second Chamber with a particular concern for constitutional matters.

If the Bill had made progress as the result of pre-legislative scrutiny, with a Joint Committee considering all of its proposals, or for that matter if there had been two separate Bills, one on the AV referendum and another on parliamentary constituencies, I would agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that the Government have abused every single constitutional convention in driving the Bill forward, so I am afraid I am not with him on this occasion.