Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Debate between Claire Perry and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on becoming a granny. That does not seem possible.

Whatever I say, or other Ministers say, from the Dispatch Box is reported in Hansard, and is the next day’s chip paper. What we must do is act. We must set out actions, set out our ambitions, and work together. I am disappointed to hear that the hon. Lady thinks I have been complacent at the Dispatch Box. I have tried incredibly hard to show that we are listening, we are acting, and we are delivering. We must accelerate that, but the hon. Lady should be proud of the fact that ours is the first developed country to say, “Help us to understand what net zero looks like: what will the changes have to be?” Does that sound hopeless? It sounds hopeful to me.

[Chris Bryant]

Despite living in an area of multiple deprivation, the vast majority of my constituents own their homes, but it is very difficult for them to make those homes viable and to conserve energy. The previous system, introduced by the coalition Government, was a complete and utter disaster: local businesses closed, and a great deal of shoddy work was done. Many families were desperate, because they thought that they had wasted money and were financially out of pocket themselves. Will the Government look closely at a new means of ensuring that people like my constituents can do their bit, although they have not much money in their own pockets?

[Claire Perry]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Each Home Counts review that we did, whose recommendations we have accepted, and where we have a trust mark for the work he mentions, should stop this problem happening in the future. Too much shoddy work has been done. Reparations have been made. Essentially, people have to have confidence that the work they are having done to their homes is of a high standard and is effective.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Claire Perry and Chris Bryant

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have a problem with the position adopted by the Liberal Democrats since the general election. I should be happy to hear their arguments in favour of the substantive issue. Let them put the case, and put it convincingly, rather than hiding behind the process and the European Court. It would be quite nice to hear the Deputy Prime Minister say a single word on the subject.

Let me turn to the Court’s decision in Hirst v. the United Kingdom that the blanket ban on prisoners from voting contravenes article 3 of protocol 1—a decision which, I should point out, was not unanimous, and was not supported by the then Swiss President of the Court, Professor Luzius Wildhaber. The problem is simple. As is stated in the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, published yesterday,

“however morally justifiable it might be, this current situation is illegal under international law founded on the UK’s treaty obligations.”

Clearly, as some have already suggested today, we could tear up our treaty obligations. I believe that would be wrong in principle and foolhardy in practice. For the UK to leave the Court would be fatally to undermine its authority. It would be to abandon much of Europe to precisely the same disregard of human rights as was evident when the Court was founded, and for British industry and British citizens living, working and doing business across the continent, that rule of law, enforced through the right to petition the Court, is vital. Alternatively, we could seek to reform the Court, steering it away from trying to be a form of supra-national supreme court and quasi-legislature.

It may be that today’s motion could help in that process, as the Attorney-General has suggested. After all, the Court asserted that

“there is no evidence that Parliament has ever sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of a blanket ban”.

It was wrong on that, although there have not been many debates on the matter, but I think that is because there was unanimity in the House rather than because Members did not have a view on it. Following today however, a robust vote from this House will make it impossible for the Grand Chamber to maintain that claim.

The third course of action open to us is to enforce the Court’s judgment, and here there is another problem. While the Grand Chamber maintained that a blanket ban on all convicted prisoners was disproportionate, it also argued that

“Contracting States must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere”

and that

“the margin in this area is wide.”

Subsequent judgments, not least those referred to by the Attorney-General of Frodl v. Austria, Py v. France—which he did not refer to—and Greens and M.T. v. the UK all point in different directions. In particular, Frodl v. Austria seems to suggest putting a new gloss on the Hirst interpretation, while Greens and M.T. v. the UK appears to be rather more lenient in its approach and allows a greater margin of appreciation.

The key question is: how wide is the margin, or how much wriggle room do we have? We know there are wide variations in European practice on prisoners’ voting. In Belgium, four months is the length of time, whereas in some countries the ban on voting can continue after the imprisonment has ended. That is why I wholly agree with the dissenting opinion of Professor Wildhaber and others in the Hirst case when they say

“the legislation in the United Kingdom cannot be claimed to be in disharmony with a common European standard.”

They said that because there is not a European standard, and it is therefore difficult to see how the courts could enforce in this direction. What is the absolute minimum the Government would have to do in order to appease the Court?

[Claire Perry]

Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that part of the problem in defining this on a pan-European basis is that we have completely different definitions of what constitutes a crime and what sentencing should be applied? Therefore, trying to apply a blanket ban on a cross-border basis is inane.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, the Court itself has made it clear in successive judgments that a whole series of matters would determine how a national legislature decided to approach the issue of voting. The proportional representation issue has been raised in the debate, but that is not a matter of particular concern to the Court. Matters of concern to it include the history, tradition and pattern of voting. The Court has always accepted that, which is why a lot of us are very keen to make sure that the wriggle room that is allowed—the margin of appreciation to use its term—is as extensive as possible.