Today’s Business of the House

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This Parliament has seen the greatest transfer of the parliamentary timetable from outside the Government’s control of any Parliament of modern times, with the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee as well as maintaining Opposition days. There has been historic reform, and I am sure that that trend will continue in the future. This Parliament has also seen the election of Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot, and that is now an important principle in this House. What we are discussing today is in line with that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I started with the presumption that I would vote in favour of a secret ballot for the Speaker. However, this is a constitutional matter of some importance that also goes to the heart of the relationship between the Executive and this Parliament, and as such, it should have been heard on a prime-time day, with the whole House here, with plenty of time. Instead, if the House votes for this today, people will get the impression that what should have been a constitutional matter has been allowed to become an ad hominem matter, and a rather mean-spirited one at that, and that in future this House will tolerate the Executive taking action against an uncomfortable and difficult Speaker.

[Mr Hague]

It is for the House to decide on the merits of this. I do not think my right hon. Friend can argue that we are in anything other than prime time at the moment, since the House is well attended and this debate is receiving a great deal of attention. It is for the House to decide on the merits of the motions. If the motion on a secret ballot is carried, it will be for the House to make its own decisions in the future.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Either my hon. Friend has seen my speech or she is telepathic, because I was going to make exactly the same point. There is an overlap between the referendum campaign in Scotland on the crucial issue of independence and the 12 months prior to the next general election, but the Government are yet to show any appreciation of the potential difficulties that could be caused in identifying the respective areas of spend. I would like a categorical commitment from the Government that they will provide a written statement setting out precisely how such difficulties could be avoided or, if they occur, addressed successfully.

It gives me no pleasure to say that this Bill is a monumental shambles. As the Financial Times said in its leader on Monday, the Bill ought to be withdrawn, and legislation affecting political funding and elections should be the subject of cross-party agreement. That should also involve the Electoral Commission in all discussions, as well as the charities and campaigning organisations that would be directly affected by the Bill. It is high time that the big money is indeed taken out of politics. It is also important that we as a House stand full square behind our collective desire to ensure that civil society is a vital part of a healthy democracy. It is a great shame that apparently the Government do not hold that view.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and new clause 4. However, before I speak briefly about that, I want to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) at the beginning, because I am afraid to say that I largely agree with him.

I do not hold much of a brief for any of this Bill, but part 2 as it stands seems to be a very serious mistake. I am particularly concerned because it used to be a convention, at least when I came into the House, that we did not guillotine constitutional Bills, yet part 2 goes to the heart of our democracy and free speech, as demonstrated by the opponents to the Bill. I know of no previous Bill that had ranged against it Christian Aid and the British Humanist Association, Greenpeace and the Countryside Alliance, or the Royal British Legion and the Salvation Army. It is a Bill that has attracted opposition precisely because it goes to the heart of all that those organisations do—not what they stand for, but what they do and how they execute their duty in society.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although it is not such a broad constitutional issue, is it not also the case that the points we have raised about the implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are genuine concerns, not just points we are making today, and that if we do not get them right, there is a danger that we will produce legislation that is, frankly, unworkable?

[Mr Davis]

That is why I start from my concern about the guillotine, because this is a Bill that in past decades—not past years, sadly—would have spent hours, days and weeks on the Floor of the House. It would have been preceded by a proper consultation, a cross-party agreement, a Green Paper and a White Paper—there was a White Paper, but as far as I could tell, it did not refer to part 2 at all. The Bill has not gone through what in my view would be a proper constitutional process and so will of course be subject to unintended consequences all over the place.

I accept that the Government will not have intended many of the consequences—I will come to some that they do intend in a minute. I accept that the deleterious consequences of the Bill were not intentional, but they arise directly from how the Government started the process. We had a brilliant report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, as chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which could have provided a basis. That Committee could have been the vehicle for the process. The hon. Gentleman is right: there will be deleterious consequences, most of them unintended, but most of them because of how we have addressed this Bill.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has made it clear that it has similar concerns outstanding, despite the apparent movement by the Government on clause 26? It says in its brief:

“'We remain concerned that…voluntary organisations…may still be subject to ambiguous and damaging legislation. NCVO believes in a society where freedom of speech, the freedom to associate and the right to free and fair elections are all similarly inviolable.”

[Mr Davis]

Let me pick up that point and develop it a little—we are principally talking about clause 26, but it also relates to later clauses, which will be dealt with later in the day. It is in this context that the comments from the Electoral Commission—the primary executing agency of this Bill—come into play. It uses the words “significant regulatory uncertainty”, saying that parts of the Bill are “impossible to enforce” and pointing out “significant issues of workability”. What are we doing? We are transforming a bureaucratic organisation, with the powers to make rules on policy campaigning, as well as to relax those rules, tighten the rules, amend them retrospectively and then apply them retrospectively to freedom of speech—something that is, by definition, oppressive. By definition, that will chill freedom of speech. This Parliament has created a bureaucracy without the ability to alter, change or amend the rules before—it was known as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. What we are creating in this Bill is—if we want a precursor of how this will play out—an IPSA for elections.

Let me turn to new clause 4. When it comes to political campaigns—whether electoral campaigns or other campaigns—the world is changing. Twenty-five years ago, I think only 8% of the population did not feel an affinity to one or other party. That figure is now 25%. All the political parties are declining—there is no party point in this; we are all dying on the vine as organisations. It is the nature of society that people’s interest in something tends to be more piecemeal than it was 25 or 50 years ago. This Bill is trying to swim upstream. It is trying to defy the nature of modern politics and the fact that political decision making now is by web-based campaigners, web-based petitions or 38 Degrees.

I get as annoyed as everyone else when I get campaigners from 38 Degrees writing to me—they say that they sometimes get dusty replies—but as Voltaire would have put it, I may disagree with what they say, but I defend to the death their right to say it. What part 2 does—not intentionally, but by accident—is jeopardise that entire tradition of our country. This is the home of free speech and this Chamber is the original defender of free speech, so what are we doing making these changes by accident? That is why I am concerned.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely strong point. Does he agree that 38 Degrees is facilitating the ability of our constituents to make their voices heard? It is not campaigning itself, separately from society. The Bill would cut down the ability of our constituents to make their voices heard on many crucial issues.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to commit political suicide by confessing that I have used 38 Degrees in some of my campaigns. Sometimes I am for, and sometimes I am against. The organisation is part of the modern mechanism, and it is not the only one. It was, after all, based on similar organisations in America and Australia. That is the way politics is going and, frankly, my constituents should judge me on whether I voted for the proposed Syrian war. They should judge me on whether I voted for tuition fees and on how I voted on this, that or the other measure.

If I may, I shall disagree with the author of new clause 4, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, on one point. He said that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was wrong to claim that it was an attempt to protect the Liberal party from the National Union of Students, but I was told by a member of the Liberal party that that is exactly what it was intended for. The raw truth is that, in our trade, we should be willing to stand by our principles and our aims, and by what we actually do. We should live or die by that, in political terms.

I want to make one more point, and I shall make it directly to the Minister on the Front Bench. As I have said, this section of the Bill deals with a constitutional matter and goes to the heart of free speech in our society. Undertakings have been given by those on the Front Bench—entirely in good faith, I imagine. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been teased about tabling a manuscript amendment, because that is not the way to do it. We should do it properly, with proper legal advice and taking a wide range of contributions from the very people who will be affected. What the Government should have done before the Bill was presented to the House should be done now. If it is not done now, and if what is presented on Report is unacceptable, it will probably still get through, although I shall vote against it.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

I am on almost my last line, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.

The Bill would probably still get through in those circumstances, but it is probable that the House of Lords, whose primary function is to act as a defender of our constitutional rights, would strip out the whole central section of the Bill. That is what it ought to do, and that is what it will do if the Government do not get the next stage right.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He has made an important and valuable contribution to today’s debate. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, the most serious concerns raised by Members on both sides of the House related to clauses 26 and 27, so I am glad that we are debating this robust and constructive set of amendments this afternoon. I am also glad that the Government have acknowledged that certain aspects of the proposals are problematic and have agreed to table amendments on Report.

The principles and the workability of this part of the Bill are problematic, and I hope that the Government will look at it again. In particular, they have sought to distance their intentions from some of the scenarios that have been outlined by civil society groups, but we must concentrate on the actual text that will form the basis of the courts’ interpretation of the legislation. I reiterate a point I made the other day about the explanatory notes to the Bill, which state clearly:

“The definition of the term ‘for electoral purposes’ does not rely solely on the intent of the third party; the effect of the expenditure must also be considered.”

That illustrates the Bill’s ambiguity and lack of clarity.

The Electoral Commission has consistently raised the concern that, under this part of the Bill, it will acquire a wide discretion to interpret whether third party activities fall within the regulatory framework established by the Bill. Neither the commission nor I thinks that that is an appropriate role for it. Its role is to regulate, not to decide what should be regulated. I share the concern expressed earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), on this point.

The Electoral Commission has also expressed what I suspect are well-founded fears that, as things stand, any interpretation of regulated activity could be open to legal challenge. In the short time that we have been discussing these proposals this afternoon, we have already heard examples of organisations taking legal advice. The last thing any of us wants is for this to end up in protracted and expensive legal challenges. That would not be an appropriate way of deciding what the law actually is. We need clarity on the face of the Bill and in the explanatory notes. I observe that many of the amendments in this group share the common aim of clarifying and tightening up the Government’s definitions, and I shall be looking for assurances from the Minister that any amendments tabled on Report will tackle the issue of definitions, in order to avoid placing the Electoral Commission in that contradictory position—that conflict of interest, if you like—in relation to the job that it is being asked to do.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

The Government will have to do a lot more work to persuade the official Opposition and most of civil society that they have got the balance right.

From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, this Bill does the complete opposite. It is a sop to powerful vested interests, a sinister gag on democratic debate in the run-up to the general election and a shameful abuse of the legislative process to make cheap partisan points. This is a very bad Bill. It will let Lynton Crosby continue to advise the Prime Minister on tobacco policy. It will let big tobacco continue to target the Government, without requiring those interests to register at all, but it could stop an organisation like Cancer Research UK campaigning against them.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has used the phrase “excessive haste” twice in her speech so far, and with respect to part 2, I rather agree with her. Historically, constitutional and democratic measures have not been guillotined in the House. Does the Opposition intend to vote against the guillotine tonight?

[Ms Eagle]

Yes. We will vote against the timetable, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby, because one of the things that the Bill needs is more time for pre-legislative scrutiny and a closer look, so that we can get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

Yes indeed, and it is not addressed. Neither is it easy to address. By combining their wit and capability, however, 650 Members of Parliament could design the amendments to make this Bill work, if Members in all parts of the House are prepared, for once, to rise above the dogfight and accept some of them. I wish we were not discussing this Bill now and that it was in a special Committee. However it is not, but there will be possibilities on an all-party basis for Members to try and make it work, and I will mention a couple of them.

I say gently to my very good Friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that it is no good attacking the Government for not having pre-legislative scrutiny, and for the Opposition not then to say that we will have such scrutiny as of right and as in normal process, so that in future, when the Labour party sits on the other side of the House, our Bills will command much wider support and not come back. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who I have known for many years, that it is not about just getting the ball rolling. This is an opportunity to do the job well, and it is perfectly within our ability to do that.

As we know, there are three main sections to the Bill. All I will say about the lobbying Bill—I will speak if I am called as the Committee stage progresses—is that it is very limited, not what we expected and, even more importantly, not what the public expect of us. We will seek to redefine issues such as those concerning who is lobbied. People who lobby the civil service do not go to the permanent secretary but talk to the desk officer or the director general. Those people are outwith the concept of the Bill. Let us also redefine who the lobbyists are. At the moment, estimates vary that between 1% and 5% of lobbyists will be caught by the Bill. Surely nobody out there will accept that as the basis of a lobbying Bill.

I have a pertinent and specific question for all Members of the House about their role and function as lobbyists. I hope we are the best lobbyists that can be found, particularly on behalf of our constituents. However, we should tread in that area carefully because as soon as we start putting the rights of Members of Parliament in statute per se, we allow justiciability to take place and people to say, “You did or you didn’t perform under your legislative duties.” That could have severe consequences, and we must explore that in great detail in Committee.

On part 2 of the Bill, one of the most wonderful parts of my life experience as a Member of Parliament is when we come towards a general election, and all those different bodies start to get hold of us, lobby us, knock on our doors, phone us and send letters—“Come to our meeting. You will not get our vote unless we know exactly what you are doing on this.” Someone on the opposite side then says exactly the same thing: “What do you do? How do you think those issues through? Let’s understand those issues.” That is the lifeblood and rich diversity of our democracy, and we should be doing everything we can to improve and increase it, not to diminish and cast a shadow over it.

I do not believe for a moment that the Leader of the House is trying to chill the voluntary and charitable sectors. However, in this case, I speak as a trustee of a charity. I will not put the money in that charity, which is for doing great things for kids, at risk. I will not authorise anything that even remotely possibly could risk that money—we are not sure what the Government mean or what they are trying to do. I will not do that, which dampens and inadvertently chills.

[Mr David Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Allen]

I must press on—I am sorry that I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Who are we trying to constrain? I shall tell the House of just a few organisations that have sent evidence to my Committee. They include fringe organisations such as Citizens Advice, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Royal British Legion and Oxfam. Those organisations have written to the Committee in the past week or so. Others include the Voluntary Sector North West, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Roald Dahl’s Marvellous Children’s Charity, the British Youth Council, the National Trust, the Women’s Support Network, Christian Aid, the Stroke Association, Girlguiding and—this is the real hardcore—the Woodland Trust. Mencap and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have also written to the Committee. Surely we intend to make those organisations believe they have an increasing rather than a diminishing part in our democracy.

I ask the Government to think again and to do so seriously. The Committee will propose amendments on redefining terms. A number of colleagues have asked what the Government mean by “electoral purposes”. What does that capture? We want to give people reassurance on that.

The Committee has taken evidence from the Electoral Commission. The last thing the Electoral Commission wants is to be given responsibility for the measures and to be made the judge. It wants clarity and to remain impartial. It does not want to be drawn into arguments on freedom of speech. It does not want to be the arbiter of what is or is not quasi-political and of what is perfectly legitimate.

Business of the House

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That is not the case. Seventeen Bills were announced in the Gracious Speech last week, which is in line with the single year numbers we saw in a number of Sessions under the last Government, including 2008 and 2009. As part of the reforms of this House, and of improving scrutiny, we gave 14 Bills two days on Report over the last two Sessions, and we are proud that the business I have just announced will give both the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and the Energy Bill two days on Report. The hon. Lady is barking up completely the wrong tree.

The Prime Minister was told by the Labour party that he would not deliver a reduction in the EU budget, but he did deliver one. As a consequence, our rebate is protected and we will have the opportunity to debate that in due course. Once the decision is through the Council, we will be able to bring forward a Bill to ratify the EU own resources decision.

The legislative programme is not a mouse. Not only was it a full programme, but we are making good progress with it in a way that is, I think, exemplary. Ten Bills have been published in the week since the Gracious Speech: the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which is important as it tackles an area of reform that has not been tackled previously; the Care Bill, which is important and cannot be called an insignificant piece of legislation; the Intellectual Property Bill; the Local Audit and Accountability Bill; the Mesothelioma Bill; the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill; the Pensions Bill; the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill; and the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill. All have been published within a week of the Gracious Speech and that is a substantial programme of legislation.

The hon. Lady’s final points were all, in one way or another, about the vote last night, which in all respects proceeded from a complete misapprehension. The point is that the Government did not have a policy on whether there should be an EU referendum Bill, and so voting for the amendment last night—which many of my colleagues in the Conservative party did, as did Labour Members and a Liberal Democrat Member—was not voting against Government policy because the Government did not have a policy on that. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Lady’s argument does not follow. The simple point is that what is in the Queen’s Speech is agreed Government policy. There may be no Government policy on something that was not in the Queen’s Speech, so of course Ministers could not vote for it, but everybody else was able to vote as they saw fit, which is precisely what they did last night.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the potential misuse of money by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? IPSA appears to have employed incredibly expensive lawyers from Matrix Chambers in pursuing what looks like a county court action. That can be explained only if it is trying to intimidate the Members involved, which would be quite improper. May we have a response on that from those on the Front Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will say to my right hon. Friend that because this matter relates to a particular case, I do not want to talk about it in any detail from the Dispatch Box. For his convenience, and that of the House, I note that there is scope for the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which I am a member, to ask questions about how IPSA undertakes its activities and the value for money it achieves. We held public evidence sessions last Tuesday, which of course affords an opportunity for IPSA to be held accountable.

Backbench Business Committee

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am sorry to hear that, obviously, but it is for the House to make that decision in the light of today’s debate. There would be very little point in our determining that we should have made a change to the process of election after the elections had been held for the next Session. It seems appropriate to me that the House should have the opportunity, as it does today, to consider the matter and come to a conclusion. The will of the House on whether it wishes to make the suggested changes will then prevail.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is for the House to make its decision as this concerns House of Commons business. Will he tell us whether Government members and parliamentary private secretaries are being whipped on this business, and if so why?

[Mr Heath]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to ask his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary about the position on whipping. There are motions on the Order Paper for debate later today that very much reflect the Government’s position on the conduct of business. On those matters, it is quite clear that right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government will be whipped to support the Government view, and they are of course here as a consequence.

Bill of Rights

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Hemming]

Yes, it is a dreadful abuse of state power to threaten to remove a child from the care of the parents because they deign to speak to their Member of Parliament. That happened to one of my constituents, Andrew France, and I will come to the detailed documentation on that later. I think that is a dreadful thing to do with people.

On the Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2009, I pointed out that it is in fact entirely lawful to talk to anyone. To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament. Later, I will come in detail to the example from Australia which demonstrates that it can be interpreted as contempt of Parliament, so Parliament could take action on those grounds to ensure that people’s right to talk to their MP is protected.

Last week, I raised the issue of Fred Goodwin and Lee Gilliland. Everyone tended to concentrate on Fred Goodwin and the banker issue, but I think that the issue of Lee Gilliland is more important. The Gilliland case is slightly complex, and I cannot refer to some things, because proceedings are continuing. However, in the historic proceedings to which I referred last week, he had his mental capacity removed, on his right to instruct a solicitor, on the basis of a report from his GP which was written some five months after his GP had last seen him and which he has still not seen—I spoke to him about half an hour ago.

It took me a little time to get into the issue of mental capacity, when I first encountered it a number of years ago, because it seemed so shocking. Yes, we have the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which specifies circumstances under which people’s capacity can be removed, but I was surprised to find a situation in which someone who seems coherent could be told, basically, “You’re too stupid to tell a solicitor what to do. And, because you are too stupid to tell a solicitor what to do, we will appoint what is called a litigation friend”—one must distinguish between a litigation friend and a McKenzie friend, because people sometimes confuse the two. The litigation friend acts on someone’s behalf. The Official Solicitor is often appointed as litigation friend even though the Official Solicitor ought really to be appointed as a litigation friend of last resort.

With the agreement of the Official Solicitor on behalf of Mr Gilliland, a decision was made by the court. The house he lived in was to be sold, with half the money going to him—roughly £50,000. However, he was to be evicted and, of the £50,000, more than £37,000 would go to his solicitor. Who is protecting Mr Gilliland’s interests? He did not start out as a particularly wealthy individual, then the state came in and said, “You are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, but you can’t see the basis upon which we have made that decision. Oh, and by the way, we are going to take three quarters of the money you might have had, turfing you out of your house and putting you on the streets, and give it to your solicitor.”

I do not see that as treating Fred Goodwin on the one hand and Lee Gilliland on the other hand equally. Fred Goodwin can afford to spend a lot of money on getting an injunction, or even a super-injunction under which someone cannot even talk about him having the injunction. I will come to what I call hyper-injunctions. One of the freedom of speech issues is that media organisations are generally commercial organisations, and there gets to be a point at which it is not worth their while trying to challenge the system and to get information out. With that, we return to the article 9 issue, because our freedom of speech in the House is obviously on behalf of the citizens. We need to know of grievances so that we can raise them and talk about them publicly, so that the citizens of the UK can know. If it costs £20,000 or £30,000 in legal fees to write an article, in most circumstances a media organisation will just give up. The freedom of speech is basically sold down the river, because of the costs of the legal processes.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on a massively important subject.

I was not at the signing of the Magna Carta, or later ones, but I have been in the House for 22 years and I have a couple of observations. One of the reasons that the Cinque ports and London are still on the statute book is because the redress of grievances was always done before the Crown—the state now—and it got its interest, its reward, its return and its borrowing from the City of London.

What we are seeing, and it has got worse over the course of the past 22 years, is the interests, prejudices and career risks of the organisation dealing with the individual, be it a solicitor or even a family or social services officer, put to the fore—not always, but sometimes—ahead of the interests of the constituent. Those officers of local authorities, courts and so on have put their interests or privileges ahead of ours, and it has happened time and time again. In my constituency, teachers have been accused of sexual misdemeanours which were later proven not to be true, and people have been threatened with their children being taken away—a whole series of areas.

Our job is to be the defence of last recourse for the individual. We stand between the individual and the misdemeanours of the state or, indeed, the lynch-mob law at the other extreme. That is why, in modern terms, and not just in terms of the ancient rights, our access to information is fundamental to continuing freedom in Britain. Once our right to have that information is taken away, the freedoms of our citizens and constituents are undermined. Parliament itself—its officers and the Speaker—should take a stand and make a statement to the effect that we have those rights on behalf of our constituents. May I have the view of my hon. Friend?

[John Hemming]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend; he is entirely right. People recognise that we in the House act as the last resort in many ways. I will give examples from among my own constituents for whom I have acted in the last resort. We need to stand up for the citizen.

One of the problems with how things have developed, and with all the secrecy rules, is that they seem to act to protect not vulnerable people but those who make money out of the system. That is dangerous, because we then have what Councillor Len Clark in Birmingham talked about as the “penguin mentality”. Basically, whenever there is any criticism—he was citing social workers—they stand like penguins, back to back, on a different continent to everyone else, Antarctica, and they just refute all criticism. Any real problem in the system is then very difficult to deal with.

We will look at the issue of Dr Waney Squier later. Her problem is that the area on which she can argue her case is trapped by the secrecy of the family courts. That is protecting not children but the judicial process from scrutiny. It is about identifying not the children or the parents involved in the case but the rational process by which a conclusion has been reached.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is entirely and totally right. We need to stand up collectively, and we hope that the Speaker might do as my right hon. Friend requests.

I will now look in more detail at Andrew France’s case. I have some of the documentation with me, including a county court order—for proceedings that have now completely ended, so it is a public document, and there is no issue of privilege. The document is there in the courts. In the recitals, it states:

“upon the first and second Respondents agreeing that they will make no further disclosure in respect of this matter to any third party, including in particular the media and John Hemmings MP.”

It is somewhat surprising that I am such a threat to the system that so much effort will go into stopping one of my constituents speaking to me. He was wrongly imprisoned on a made-up allegation of rape, so he went through a serious process. He won his criminal appeal but he complained about a social worker in the process, so the authorities decided to start proceedings in the family courts. Luckily, an excellent judge junked it in the bin, because it was transparently such nonsense, and everything ran smoothly for the family. However, my constituent was under no illusion that had he not agreed to those recitals in the court order, the council would have taken action—he was told—which would have been to apply for a care order taking his four-year-old daughter into care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

I am listening with fascination to this case because it seems to me that it is clearly a contempt of Parliament. Who is the Official Solicitor responsible to, if not to us?

[John Hemming]

The Official Solicitor’s answer is that he is accountable to the court. However, I cannot see where the real scrutiny of that process is. Let us consider the case I mentioned earlier—the £37,000 case—which also involved the Official Solicitor. Obviously, Alastair Pitblado does not trundle around the country like Father Christmas, visiting every court for a few seconds. We are talking about members of his staff, who will vary in calibre. As far as I can see, there is no real scrutiny of the Official Solicitor. Yes, the court may spot something, but it is very difficult. Who is actually acting to protect somebody against what the Official Solicitor does? That is a very difficult question. In addition, I have asked if I can go and see the constituent concerned and have been refused. So, someone is being held incommunicado from her Member of Parliament.

On the issues surrounding what can be done as a last resort, I shall discuss another constituent: Michael Singleton. His mum was very surprised that he had been jailed for five years, given that the allegation was that he had intentionally set fire to the house they were living in and had gone back to bed in the same house. She came to see me and we filled in the forms for him to appeal to the criminal Court of Appeal as a litigant in person, after which he was released. That shows the importance of having the last resort because the state would have wasted a lot of money keeping him locked up when there was nothing to be gained from doing so. It was lucky that that case was not covered by any confidentiality and that no one was trying to ban him from talking to me or his mum or anything like that, and he was therefore released.

The other person I have mentioned is still basically in the power of the state, and the people concerned are banned from coming to talk to me. Therefore, I cannot give them any advice on how they might be able to appeal the process and challenge things. I do not have a degree in law, although I have a certain amount of experience with it. My degree is more science-based. I shall also mention another, more recent constituency case. I will not name the person concerned because it might be sub judice. We are trying to get it to be sub judice.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

The person in question could actually be jailed for telling his MP that he had been in court case No. 773. What is so sensitive about that? In practice, even family court proceedings are not that confidential. I think this case was in the Commercial and Admiralty court. My first question is not just how the hell this could happen—I apologise for the non-parliamentary language, Mr Bone. How does this happen? How many more of these cases are there? How many secret cases do we have in this country, with people being banned from even saying that the case exists?

In the past couple of days, Lord Neuberger has said that super-injunctions are dubious. There is an argument for a temporary super-injunction from time to time in a fraud case so that money can be chased around the world, but it is complete nonsense to have something that is still in force almost five years later and whose existence cannot even be mentioned outside parliamentary proceedings. In this case, there is also the health and safety issue. I do not know how serious it is, although now that the case has been mentioned in parliamentary proceedings, I will send people a copy of Hansard, ask for their comments and see what explanation they give. If I can find an appropriate Committee in the House to pass the details to, I will do so.

This is not the sort of thing that should happen. This is not about transparency and accountability, but about using lots of money. We come back to Magna Carta and somebody with a lot of money. We are talking about various companies with lots of money gagging some poor individual. Where is the equality of arms in that? Where is the idea that we will not sell justice? The courts may not be selling justice, but the legal process as a whole is not really very balanced if this is the sort of thing that goes on.

However, let us move on. I hope I have given enough examples and that everyone is happy, but I think we should move on to the more general points about contempt of Parliament. As colleagues know, the House of Commons has the power, by referring cases to the Standards and Privileges Committee, to deal with contempt of Parliament. In fact, the last example came about at my suggestion. I moved a motion to refer someone to the Committee last year, when Withers threatened me with legal action unless I agreed not to say something in the House. That was an obvious and very straightforward contempt of Parliament.

There is an interesting case involving the Member for Preston in the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, and I have a copy of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee report if any hon. Member would like to see it afterwards. The case is interesting because it involved threats of legal action against a constituent for passing information to a Member of that Parliament, with a view to preventing that Member from speaking about an issue there. I think we are bang to rights, because the case provides exactly the precedent that would be necessary to justify using contempt of Parliament proceedings against those who wish to prevent people from talking to Members of Parliament in the UK.

The issue is quite straightforward; in fact, it has been looked at in the domestic courts to determine the extent to which communications with Members of Parliament are potentially privileged. In the case of Rivlin v. Bilainkin, the judgment, which was delivered on 18 December 1952, concluded that a communication with a Member of Parliament is not automatically privileged, even if it is handed over in Parliament. It is the institutions that matter; in that respect, we constitute Parliament just as much in this Chamber as in the main Chamber. If something is not connected with proceedings in Parliament, it is not privileged; if it is connected with proceedings in Parliament, it is privileged. That obviously gives the House control over which communications with Members of Parliament are privileged and protected by article 9.

[Mr David Davis]

I do not know which level of court would make that judgment, but it produces an enormous perverse incentive. That became apparent during the case involving my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—now the Minister for Immigration. He was arrested for handling information that had been leaked from the Government; it was actually in the public interest that he handled that information, but we will put that to one side. One of his defences was that he used the information in his role as a Member of Parliament. However, there was a vast quantity of information—I handled it and he did, too, because he worked for me at the time—and we made judgments all the time about not putting things in the public domain in Parliament. By doing so, however, we put ourselves at risk. I can think of a couple of secret pieces of information—I will not relay them now—that would have affected terrorism and which we did not put in the public domain. By not putting them into a parliamentary question or into parliamentary debate, we put ourselves at risk. The impact of this judgment therefore seems perverse in terms of public policy and in terms of its impact on the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament.

[John Hemming]

The question is how closely something is connected with proceedings in Parliament. A Member might say that something will, under no circumstances, be connected with proceedings in Parliament. I think that deals with my right hon. Friend’s valid concern. We all deal day to day with real situations and we sift information, and it should not have to find its way into a debate to be protected by privilege. I was particularly concerned about the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford because the Executive were interfering with Parliament; there is no question about that. Parliament is here to protect citizens of the UK, not MPs. The individual who was trussed up by that secret hyper-injunction needs protecting. We all need protecting from water that people are being told to drink without being warned that there are potentially toxins in it. That causes me great concern. This is about protecting people, not about using money and wealth to get legal processes to gag people. There is a way round these issues, but it requires Parliament to stand up for the people and for people’s right to communicate with Members of Parliament.

The same issues have cropped up in other jurisdictions. Obviously, all the common law jurisdictions tend to have a similar process. I gave the example from Australia, which was valid there; however, there is also the interesting case of Germany, which involves a similar sort of protection. Obviously, the exemptions on the continent are quite different. There is protection for members of the Bundestag, but not members of the Bundesrat, which is not too surprising. That protection is under article 47 of the Basic Law, which relates to the right of refusal to give evidence. Members of the Bundestag have a right to refuse to say where the information they have has come from.

We need to go further than that. We need to protect people’s right not be bullied. Somebody might say, in all innocence, that they would like to talk to their MP about a housing problem or something else, but they might then be threatened and told that if they try to get help, action will be taken against them.

We have looked at the issue of the accountability of the Official Solicitor, who is basically not accountable at all, not on an individual case basis. We were lucky with the Gilliland case because that is a probate case in open court. Most of the cases are in secret: there is no access to the transcripts, there is no way of challenging the experts’ opinions, and there is no independent scrutiny. Often the people involved are quite poor and may not be very bright, and it is a challenge getting accountability in that situation.

The accountability of the judiciary depends to some extent on openness, at least open judgments. There is the issue of article 6 subsection (1) of the European convention on human rights, though some people may not be so enthusiastic about it:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

There are exemptions to parts of the trial mentioned there, but judgment should be pronounced publicly. What is the basis of banning the mention of proceedings and banning telling MPs about proceedings’ existence? How many of those cases do we have?

Looking further into issues of accountability, I will cover two other cases quickly. One is of Rachel Pullen, which is in the European Court. She can be named; there are no problems there. I have a psychiatric report indicating that she does have capacity. The Official Solicitor conceded the case against her when she was told she did not have capacity. I have Husan Pari—a very similar case. The Official Solicitor was appointed in part because an IQ test was given through an interpreter who did not speak the right language. With someone who could speak to her in her own language, she has the capacity to understand the case. She was not allowed to run her own case. I am doubtful about the case I mentioned earlier. The European Court is going to look at two of those cases.

The question is: is the inter-play between the estates of our constitution operating correctly? Obviously, Government Ministers should not be looking at the decisions of judges, but Parliament should, and particularly at the secret courts. Parliament has a role to do that. I have asked for an inquiry into all the secret prisoners we have. There are a number of different types of secret prisoner. There are people such as Matthew Hawkesworth; I cannot work out why he is in jail, but he is locked up. Martin McCabe is an interesting one. His wife, Susan McCabe is living on the continent, having been on the run. He was jailed for driving her to Dover. Susan McCabe’s mother, Conservative County Councillor Janet Mockridge, is particularly irate about the situation. She lives in the constituency of the Minister with responsibility for for children, who must know about some of the strange things that get done by the family courts.

Yvonne Goder was jailed in secret for a short while last year. Her committal hearings and various discussions were all held in secret. She believes that three properties were taken from her family. This is a Court of Protection matter. On 17 January 2000, the capacity of her mother Efi Goder-Marsh to manage her own affairs was taken from her and given to her husband, who denies ever getting it. On 26 May 2000, 37 Montague road, Tottenham was sold—this is all in the public records—for £107,000 to George Leonidas of an address in Chingford. On 11 August 2000, 339 Green lanes, Harringay, N4 1DZ was sold for £230,000 to Tracey Emanual of the same address in Chingford. Then 8 Etherley road, N15 3AJ was sold on 18 January 2002 for £195,000 to Southern Territory Ltd, one of whose shareholders was George Leonidas, also of the same address in Chingford. All these properties are going to the same address in Chingford. I have the transfer deeds; each was signed differently by somebody in an illegible manner, claiming to be Efi Goder-Marsh’s husband. It looks different and he denies signing them. The documents were all witnessed by somebody in a particular solicitors’ firm, with which I am in communication.

Here is the difficulty. As it is a Court of Protection, the person cannot be identified without matters going into parliamentary proceedings. That causes all sorts of problems in terms of investigation. I hope that that will not be a problem in future. She is another secret prisoner; what was the situation there? Why were there secret committal hearings? It is a contempt issue.

Other MPs have cases. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) has been working with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on the issue. He had a situation with a family judge pressuring constituents not to talk to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) had a similar problem, with pressure put on his constituents not to talk to him. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) will be here later to explain a similar problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) had a constituent threatened over an employment case, who was told not to speak to the MP and that they would suffer at work if they did so. There have been secret meetings with soldiers about weaponry. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) referred to me a case where a housing association had been getting aggressive towards a constituent with learning difficulties, and refused to consider her case because her MP had been involved.

I am not the only one having problems. When I talk to colleagues of all parties, they all find similar problems with the aggressive way in which apparatchiks of the state attempt to ban constituents from talking to MPs. We have judges creating situations where it is made an imprisonable offence to tell an MP that a case exists. I do not think that is right, transparent or accountable.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee, on which I sit, for agreeing to this debate. I am sorry about going on for such a long time, though I do not think I have repeated myself. I thank hon. Members for their forbearance, and hope that Parliament will act in future.

Business of the House

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)? The European investigation order allows foreign authorities to give instructions to the British police and allows foreign police forces to operate within the United Kingdom. That is a matter for decision by the House of Commons, not simply for notification by a Department of State.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. I think I said in response to my hon. Friend that I would contact the relevant Department and see what action the Government propose to take or recommend to the House before 28 July, which I understand is the operative date.

Business of the House

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I will of course draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the failure to call in a particular planning decision, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that one of the thrusts of the coalition Government’s policies is to devolve decision making down to local communities—to local councillors who are answerable to local people for the decisions that they take on planning and others matters.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the written statement this morning on pre-charge detention? Although I understand that the instrument will be debatable in the House, we are talking about a highly controversial issue. In future when they have such highly controversial issues, can he encourage his right hon. Friends to come and speak to the House, and not follow the new Labour practice of releasing things as written statements on a one-line Whip Thursday.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, today’s statement is about an interim arrangement while the review of detention takes place, and it carries forward for six months the 28-day detention proposal. As he generously said, the order that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just laid will be debatable and votable on in both Houses, so I hope that there will be adequate opportunity for his views on this important issue to be heard.