House of Commons Governance

Debate between David Heath and David Winnick

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be pleased to know that he is not in a minority of one when it comes to the gym. I am not altogether certain where it is located, and I cannot confess that I have much interest, but I recognise that it serves a very good purpose for many Members and, indeed, staff, which is the important point. The hon. Gentleman and I are not likely to agree over wigs and costumes, however; if only we would all recognise we are now in the 21st century.

I commend the report and the work that has been put into it. A great deal has rightly been said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his colleagues. They have undoubtedly produced a report on which, so far at least, there has been unanimous agreement, and I am not going to voice dissension.

The point is made in the report that we do not seek to be elected because of a wish to run the House. Indeed, at election time that is about the last thing on our minds. When the next campaign begins in a few weeks, running the House of Commons will not be one of the issues that we will raise with constituents. It is not likely that anyone wishes to come here to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker or to chair internal Committees. Nevertheless, the place could not function without Members being willing to take on such responsibilities. While we have the privilege—it is always a privilege—of being Members here, we have a collective overall responsibility, albeit fortunately not a day-to-day one, for the building, for appointments and for the functioning of this place. That is not an overall responsibility that we can give to Officers.

Of course we would not be debating this issue at all—there would have been no Committee in the first place—if the previous procedure for appointing a Clerk had been adopted. A proposal, which I shall not go into, caused a great deal of controversy. A motion was tabled and debated, and then the Committee was appointed—and all of that arose entirely because of the original suggestion that was made.

In paragraph 59 of the report mention is made of how in 2006 two names were put before the then Speaker by the retiring Clerk, from which a choice was made, and I recall that the current Speaker made a statement to the House on 30 June 2011 in which he told us that—from a panel of five, so it was not as in 2006—an appointment had been duly made. He made that announcement to the House and we cheered accordingly. I do not in any way question the way in which those two Clerks carried out their duties, and it is quite likely that under the new recommended appointment proposals those two individuals would have been appointed, so I am not questioning their credibility or the manner in which they carried out their jobs. The important point is the manner in which they were appointed, which was surely unacceptable then, and even more so now. I very much welcome the more complex and thorough method now being recommended for appointing the Clerk, which I am sure will be adopted.

Although the new appointment process will rightly be more thorough and complex, I would like—I hope this is not too daring a suggestion—Members generally to have a say. Would it be totally out of the question to have hustings? That happened last time for those who wanted to be Speaker, and it would have been unthinkable before. Moreover, why not have a pre-confirmation hearing before the Public Administration Committee for the successful applicant for the post of Clerk of the House of Commons? The recommendation would be made, and the person recommended would go before that Committee. In my view, there is a case to be made for that approach, although the report does not uphold that view, which is perhaps unfortunate.

If it is considered inappropriate for the person to be appointed Clerk to go before a pre-confirmation hearing—as I say, I see no reason why it should be—what about the new director general of the House of Commons? Is there a particular reason why that should not be done?

[Mr Heath]

I think there is a reason why that should not be done: that would then be substituting the judgment of one set of Members for another set. In both cases, they would be Members of this House and there is no obvious reason why the Public Administration Committee should have a better view of who should be appointed than the appointing Committee.

[Mr Winnick]

That point was made to me informally when I raised the issue with a Member who has some responsibility in this regard. I am not altogether convinced that it is written in holy scripture that, because one Committee has made a recommendation, it cannot be looked at by another Committee. However, as I said, the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn did not take up the suggestion.

In my view, it is sensible that, although the two posts will involve equal—if very different—responsibilities, the Clerk should be the more senior of the two. So much must depend on the way in which the two individuals—the Clerk of the House and the director general of the House of Commons—will be able to function, day by day. The last thing we want is a turf war: disputes about who should be responsible for a, b and c, and who for x, y and z. That would take us back to square one, or indeed worse. So it is absolutely essential that, when the appointments are made, there is a clear understanding that these are two individuals who can get on together, recognise their different functions and serve the House of Commons as it should be served.

During the last debate on this subject, I was one of those who argued that being Clerk of the House of Commons, with all the authority and understanding of its procedures that that involves, and handling the day-to-day administration are completely different functions. I am very pleased that the view is shared by a number of Members on both sides of the House, and was clearly upheld by the Committee, that these are different functions that should be performed by two different individuals.

Finally, I turn to the restoration and renewal of the building, which a number of Members have mentioned. It is absolutely essential—indeed, there is no more important issue for the new Parliament elected in May to get to grips with as soon as possible. In November 2012, we had a general debate on House of Commons facilities, at which I took the opportunity to refer to a report that mentioned such problems as widespread water penetration—more evidence of which we have seen just outside the Chamber today—and asbestos all over the building. The report also stated that the mechanical and electrical services were defective, and it should be a matter of even greater concern that it identified a high fire risk.

When the necessary overhaul work has been agreed to, there will no doubt be complaints because it is costing a very large sum of money. People will write in to ask whether the money could not have been spent on more important things, but we will have to make the point that vast sums are already being spent every year to try to keep the building in a condition in which it can function on a daily basis. This is not a matter of a few minor defects. The building is not fit for the 21st century, and it is dangerous in its present condition.

I hope that, when the new Parliament is elected, it will get down and do the necessary planning work. I agree that a new delivery service will be required, and I cannot see that being undertaken by the new Clerk and the new director general of the House of Commons. I do not believe that that should be their job; rather, as has been suggested, there should be a structure similar to the one that helped to put on the Olympics so successfully. I have no doubt that the report will be accepted; there does not seem to be any dissension. Once the two main appointments have been made, the first priority of the new Parliament regarding internal matters must be to decide how and when the work is to be carried out, as it will undoubtedly involve the evacuation of this building for a few years at least.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between David Heath and David Winnick

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Like the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, I think it is quite impossible to contribute to this debate without starting with the grim events in Paris and the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It is beyond any acceptable behaviour—of course we know that—but as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, it goes beyond terrorism, in that it would appear to be an attack precisely on free speech. I hope and trust that at the end of the day it will be proved that the pen is mightier than the sword—that people’s ideas cannot be defeated with bombs and guns—because that is what the counter-terrorism fight is all about. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that every Member of this House will be able to repeat: “Today, je suis Charlie aussi.”

It is normal on these occasions to welcome a Bill, but I do not think that I can welcome a Bill that deals with such a continuing problem. I can say only that it is a grim necessity. We should not welcome the fact of ever reducing our traditional rights and liberties other than to protect the rights and liberties of others. That is what we are, sadly, about today.

One occasionally meets people who will say that the threat is imaginary and is something somehow dreamt up by politicians in order to build their empires. I do not believe that that is the case for one moment. As someone who was on Capitol hill on 9/11 and at Aldgate station on 7/7, I do not need to be told that there is a real threat from terrorism in this and other countries—so frequently that is the case.

The test is not whether there is a necessity to deal effectively with terrorism, but whether the instruments that this House puts in the hands of the Executive are proportionate, effective and actually increase our capacity to fight terrorism rather than make the situation worse. I am, I am afraid, a veteran of far too many debates on counter-terrorism legislation over the years; other right hon. and hon. Members around the Chamber today are in the same position. I have supported some such Bills; some I have opposed; of some I have been deeply critical. I have always opposed the Home Office—I am talking about the Home Office rather than the Home Secretary—when it appears to have been more involved in legislative incontinence than getting to grips with what works and what is effective.

However, where the necessity is there, where the checks and balances are sufficient and where we ensure that every single action taken by the Executive can be reviewed and checked to see whether it is reasonable and appropriate and based on good evidence, this House has a responsibility to act on behalf of people in this country. When this Bill eventually returns from the other place, the issue of judicial oversight over the earlier parts of the Bill will be a key point for me. I hear the arguments about judicial review—that it is a retrospective and partial review—but I do not believe that that is sufficient to the task of ensuring that any Executive do not act on occasions in an excessive or peremptory way. That is why the courts have to be involved. I had this argument many times with the then Government during the last Parliament. Sometimes they accepted the arguments; sometimes, sadly, they did not.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Fortunately, our democracy continues—despite the horror in Paris and what has happened here. I hope my intervention will not be misunderstood, as it is part of democracy. Why did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not support judicial oversight yesterday? Why wait for the provisions to go to another unelected place?

[Mr Heath]

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and I am confident that the Home Secretary has clearly got the message that the Government need to table amendments in the other place, which will return to us and will then, I hope, be approved by this House. I believe that to be a perfectly appropriate mechanism. I would have preferred to have had Government amendments yesterday, but there were not any on this issue. I was saddened that we had not yet reached the point at which the Government accepted the arguments, but I believe that they now do accept them. If they do not, I suspect there will be a majority in the other place that will impose a judicial oversight amendment in any case. We would then have to debate not a Government proposal, but one concocted by colleagues in the other place. Provided that such a proposal is not grossly inappropriate, I will support it when it returns to us. I am sure I am not alone in that, and I know that the Home Secretary is looking at this very carefully. I am genuinely grateful to her and her colleagues for the fact that they have engaged with that argument.

There are still issues to be resolved. We had what was almost a semantic debate, but one that I think was important in the context of the Bill, about the difference between temporary exclusion and managed return. I feel that we are on a journey in that respect. Some people would say that the language amounts to the same thing, but I think that “managed return” better expresses where we need to be.

I have a concern that was not expressed on Report. The Bill requires the Home Secretary to issue a permit to return “within a reasonable period”. I hope that that “reasonable period” will be constrained enough to prevent people from being in limbo for a long time. They will need to know what they must do to ensure that their return is managed appropriately, and that must be arranged promptly and timeously if it is to be effective.

In a sense, however, those issues are peripheral to the main thrust of the Bill. As I have said, I cannot welcome a Bill many parts of which I would not wish to see in place, but I do not live in a perfect world. I live in a world in which the events that happened in Paris today happen not only here, but throughout the globe. We have to recognise that, and we have to deal with it. I hope that we shall reach a point at which we will no longer have to legislate in this way because people will no longer behave in the way that has become so common in recent years, but, sadly, we have not reached that point yet.