Points of Order

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of order in relation to the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill, which we expect to receive Royal Assent today. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, of which I am the Chair, has been investigating the threat posed to this country by Russia. We have produced a report, which, in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013, we sent to the Prime Minister on 17 October for him to confirm that there were no classified matters remaining. There ought not to be, because the report has already been carefully looked at by the Cabinet Office. That confirmation should have been received by today to enable publication before the House is dissolved, but I regret to say that it has not been. We thus have a Committee of Parliament waiting to lay before the House a report that comments directly on what has been perceived as a threat to our democratic processes. Parliament and the public ought to and must have access to this report in the light of the forthcoming election, and it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to sit on it and deny them that information. I raise this as a point of order in the hope that the theme of your speakership—the championing of the role of Parliament in holding to account the Executive—might be, through this point of order, as successful today as it has been over the previous decade.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows that it is not strictly a point of order for adjudication by the Chair, although his articulate efforts to raise the matter are, in my mind, perfectly legitimate. What he has said will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, and I understand that he seeks a response today. It is presumably of the essence and the utmost importance to him and his Committee that any such confirmatory response is at the very least received before Dissolution. I would hope that, as the Leader of the House is sitting on the Front Bench, we might make progress on this matter. It can potentially be expedited, and the Leader of the House might be willing to act as a messenger—or maybe more than a messenger—and we will have to see what the result is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point today, and it is potentially open to him to raise it on Monday—even on Monday—or on Tuesday, but I hope that it will not be necessary for him to raise the matter again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think that that is the case. Of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee is not a Select Committee; it is a Committee of Parliament, and therefore different arrangements apply to it. It is encouraging to see the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who have some experience of the Committee and its responsibilities, nodding in assent.

[Mr Grieve]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your response. The position is that for the report to be published, it must be laid before the House on a sitting day. As long as that happens, it can be published and will be made available to the public. If it were to be laid on a day when the House is not sitting—even before Dissolution—the Committee would not be able to publish it. Therefore, we were hoping that it could be laid and published on Monday. The anxiety relates to the apparent delay, for which we have not been provided an explanation, and that has led me to make my point of order.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I call Mr John Baron.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of extraordinary interest in the House and possibly across the nation—I say that to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest spirit—but it is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has advertised his non-membership of the ERG, and I hope he feels better for it.

[Mr Grieve]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely mistaken and cannot have been listening to what I said when I intervened on him. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who asked him the question, because that must be the position. The intention behind the Letwin amendment is to secure that insurance policy—nothing more, nothing less.

[Mr Speaker]

I say, mainly for the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are not Members of the House, that in common with the overwhelming majority of purported points of order, that was not a point of order. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he, too, will doubtless go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a consequence.

Prime Minister's Update

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

Whatever policy differences the Prime Minister may have with others, he may agree that he has an absolute duty to observe and uphold the rule of law. Whatever self-justifications he may have advanced today, he may also have to accept that in the matter of proroguing this House, he failed to do that. In those circumstances, would he now like to take the opportunity, rather than condemning the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Bill as a surrender Bill, to assure the House—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let it be said with crystal clarity including to occupants of the Treasury Bench—[Interruption.] Yes, here we go. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be heard. He will not be shouted down by people from his own Benches. That sort of behaviour is intolerable and it is obviously so to most remotely reasonable people.

[Mr Grieve]

Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to give an assurance to the House that should the terms of the Bill apply to him, rather than trying to die in ditches, he will observe those terms as he is duty bound to do?

Points of Order

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Bless you, Barry, for what you have said. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members forgive me? I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As another Buckinghamshire MP, I could not fail to rise to say words of thanks to you for what you have done.

You may recall—it is perhaps worth recalling—that when you were first elected Speaker I think I was the only person in the Chamber who did not stand to applaud you. That was for two reasons. First, I rather disapprove of these displays and, secondly, my preferences lay elsewhere. I think I also indicated to you subsequently that I would do my very best to support you. As the years have gone by, I have come to appreciate that in the extraordinary times in which we live, your leadership of this House has been, in my judgment, exemplary in standing up for the rights of Back Benchers. You will undoubtedly go down as such, setting a benchmark that, built on by future Speakers, will enable the House to operate very much better.

As for Buckinghamshire, Mr Speaker, you will undoubtedly be missed. I sometimes think in the troubled times in which we live, it is time to return to those 17th-century practices of setting up county associations and deciding to keep the rest of the world out, because we would then find that we agree with each other 100%.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said. I regard him as a quite exceptional parliamentarian, so to receive a tribute from him means a great deal to me, and I think he knows that.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

No, I will continue. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must conduct this debate in a seemly manner.

[Mr Grieve]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend in a moment.

In addition, it is a question about what this House requests. I am perfectly aware that sometimes I may say that the Government may be acting abusively, so I am the first to understand that there is a capacity for this House to act abusively. However, what is being asked for, and ought to be respected by any self-respecting Government employee, is that if they are asked to look and see whether they have carried out a communication, within the relevant request, that goes to their official work, they ought to be willing to provide it. It should not be a question of coercion; it should be a question of willingness. If we move from that, that will be the destruction of another convention under which this country has been run, and it will be greatly to our detriment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way, and he may wish to expatiate further on that matter if he catches my eye in the course of the debate. Meanwhile, it is on the record and will be widely observed.

[Mr Grieve]

I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

Detainees

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are extremely important matters, but I intend to move on from this statement absolutely no later than 10 past 12 and to dispose of, in the parliamentary sense, the business of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on the Select Committee statement by absolutely no later than half-past, so economy is of the essence.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend has said, and the Intelligence and Security Committee greatly welcomes what he said about the consolidated guidance. It has said since 2010 that the title “guidance” is itself misleading. It is not guidance, but a framework which sets the boundaries, and we are pleased that the Government have now openly acknowledged that. We are also pleased that the principles reflect the important changes that we recommended, including specific reference to extraordinary rendition alongside torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the application of the principles to joint units and non-state actors, and regular review—which is of the utmost importance, because it had not been taking place regularly in the past. We are also pleased that the agencies must follow the spirit of the principles, not just the letter. All those are, in our view, major steps forward. I greatly welcome them and thank the Government for their positive response.

The second issue concerns the inquiry into what happened during the period which has given rise to the disquiet expressed in the House and elsewhere. When the ISC was asked to carry out an inquiry, we were assured that we would have access to all the evidence that we needed in order to complete it, and thus to provide the necessary public assurance to bring closure to this matter. However, as my right hon. Friend well knows, we were unfortunately denied access to certain individuals who would have given oral evidence before us, and we therefore concluded that we must bring our inquiry to an end and publish the material that we had. A judge-led inquiry would undoubtedly have presented another opportunity for that full transparency.

Leaving aside policy or legal reasons, the one point that I would make to my right hon. Friend is that even when problems have been remedied, there is sometimes a good policy reason for bringing about closure. The simple question that I pose to him is whether the decision that has been taken will enable that closure to take place.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

He has. We are deeply grateful to him.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who both expressed their concern that the House is legislating on Northern Ireland matters. As we have set up a devolved Assembly and Executive, many of the matters with which we are concerned today now are, or should be, the province of that Assembly and that Executive, but good governance cannot exist in the condition of paralysis. Indeed, what we have seen with the passage of this Bill is that this House—very properly, because it is our duty—is paying some attention to the vacuum that exists in the Northern Ireland context, not only in wanting to see an Executive set up but in looking in the meantime at areas where there are concerns about, for example, the law as it currently exists. It is an imperfect way of doing it, but it is not an illegitimate one now.

Business of the House (European Union (Withdrawal) Act)

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

Most certainly not. We have just had in the past few hours an example of the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty, which I understand to be dear to many Members on this side of the House and elsewhere. I say to my hon. Friend that no statute may fetter in any way the procedure and processes that this House chooses to adopt. There is therefore no incompatibility whatsoever between this motion and any statute. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to the proposition of that matter being put to the test of the House in due course, but there is a choreography to these things, so it will not happen just yet. If Mr Efford wishes to orate, he has his opportunity to do so now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For a short period there will be a 10-minute limit, but I emphasise that it will be short. I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Grieve]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be brief, because I am endeavouring during the course of this afternoon to finalise agreement with the Government concerning matters we debated yesterday, so I have every incentive to be out of the Chamber. However, I would not wish to leave without pausing for a moment to deal with two issues—one of a rather more specific nature, and one of a wider nature, which has already been touched on by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

Let me start with the specific matter. We have had a very interesting debate during the passage of this Bill about what we do with retained EU law and human rights. We have felt our way through this, and at the end of his speech my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General made some sensible points about the difficulties around the charter of fundamental rights. I do accept that it sits uneasily with a situation in which we bring laws back to this country, although I highlighted to him the inconsistency of having retained EU law without having general principles potentially to override it, because it itself can override other of our domestic laws. That was the justification for it, and I regret that we are not going to keep it, but I welcome the fact that we are at least going to keep it for three years. To that extent, we have made a little progress; I am genuinely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I will accept that.

That still, however, leaves amendment 4—that of Baroness Hayter in the other place—which sought to provide some enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law. These are areas of EU law that I think many Members of this House would recognise as being of special significance, including

“employment entitlements, rights and protection”

and

“equality entitlements, rights and protection”—

something that has featured more and more in our jurisprudence. In the recent case, for example, of Benkharbouche, a lady was discriminated against in an employment setting within an embassy and succeeded, by going to the Supreme Court, in setting aside our existing laws on diplomatic immunity, because they in fact went beyond what was required under the Vienna convention. Those are real areas of progress for our legal system.

Those things will be lost without the charter and the general principles. The worry is that, while I certainly do not think my right hon. and hon. Friends want to diminish areas of equality, employment, health and safety law or consumer standards—we have covered environmental protection, interestingly enough—they have given no protective status whatever to those areas. At some point, the House will have to come back to this and consider whether we should amend the Human Rights Act 1998, which we could do, to do this in a way compatible with our parliamentary tradition and our parliamentary sovereignty. Until we do that, they do not enjoy protection.

Baroness Hayter’s amendment would at least give them this protection: that they could be altered only by primary legislation or by subordinate legislation, which would have to be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will say that that is massively unwieldy, but actually it is not. All we need is to have a set of regulations that distinguish between technical amendments, which can go through just like that, or other amendments, which would have to be dealt with in a more enhanced form. The flexibility, therefore, is in fact there in the amendment and I do not think it is as unwieldy as the Government suggest. I am afraid that the truth is that, for reasons of their own, the Government just do not want to go down this road. We discussed and debated it at great length in Committee, and although we received delightful and repeated assurances that there was an understanding that these were areas of law that really matter, I am afraid that we did not succeed in getting any further.

I am afraid, because I do not like to have to rebel against the Government line, that I will vote for amendment 4 to retain those protections, when the Government seek to remove them. It is as simple as that. It is, perhaps, a gesture, but it is a gesture designed to put down a marker to say that we cannot ignore this issue for the future. We have pretty consistently ignored them, with the one great exception of what my hon. and learned Friend secured over the three years on the general principles. Respectfully, I will differ from the Government’s approach.

The second issue, which was touched on with great eloquence by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, concerns our future relationship structure with the EU, encapsulated in the EEA Lords amendment, the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench, and, to an extent, the amendment relating to the customs union or a customs union or a customs arrangement.

Mr Speaker, I do despair. I listen over and over again—every time I stand up in this place, I receive streams of emails—to angry people insisting that the sovereignty of this country is linked to the single issue of being free of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, free of any form of customs union, and free, above all, to keep people we do not like out. That is all very well, and of course one can do those things, but the first thing that completely ignores is the fact that we are subject to myriad international laws, which we observe to the letter—because we are a rule-of-law state—quite cheerfully, and which greatly enhance our commerce, peace and security. We do it all the time because that is the way the world works in a globalised environment, but we have got ourselves so angry and so fixated that we cannot see the wood for the trees anymore.

The consequence of that, which I thought was beautifully put by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, is that we are careering off trying to do a deal on leaving the EU which entirely ignores the reality of the relationship we have. We have been discussing Ireland’s role. We have dealt with the Irish border issue very well and I am pleased with that. I hesitate to say this here, but I remember once going to Dublin and a very nice Irish economist with the Irish Government said, “Of course, we may not like it here, but the reality is that the subzone we operate in is the British economic zone and it dictates how we operate.” That is of course why we have a common travel area. Similarly, we are—for all our 65 million people, being the fifth largest economy in the world and all the other things we like to trot out, and our pride in our nation state—part of the European economic zone. That is where we trade and where our commerce goes, and although I would love it if we could enhance it, trade elsewhere and encourage the EU to trade elsewhere, that will never be a substitute for where we are.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) cannot give way; he has concluded his oration. We await the thoughts of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) at a later stage, perhaps.

[Mr Grieve]

I was amused to discover that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a little taken aback by the amendment I tabled late last night. I tabled it with his best interests at heart. Having spent last week understanding that he might imminently be joining me on the Back Benches and realising that Lords amendment 19, if endorsed by the Commons, might precipitate the same thing again, I thought I ought to do what I could to help him. That is why I tabled my amendment, in addition to the one he has tabled, in lieu of the Lords amendment.

I must tell the House that I really am worried: the irrationality of the debate on the detail of Brexit is truly chilling. A person opens their newspaper and discovers they are about to prevent Brexit, when what the House is doing is legitimately looking at the detail of one of the most complex legal and political exercises in which we have ever engaged in peacetime, and, as a result, our ability to have a rational debate entirely evaporates. If we continue in this way, we will make mistakes and not achieve the best possible outcome.

The House of Lords was not acting irrationally when it agreed amendment 19. It had picked up on something that ought to be of great concern to everybody in this House—namely, that although we can make provision for achieving a deal, if we do not achieve a deal at all, we will be facing an immense crisis. It might be that some of my colleagues on the Government Benches are excited at this prospect and think it a wonderful moment, but I am not; I think it will be catastrophic. The question, therefore, is: how do we take sensible steps, in anticipation of this, to try to ensure a coherent process for dealing with it? That is what this is about. It is not about obstructing Brexit.

If we want to obstruct Brexit, there are plenty of other ways to do it. We could replace the Government with one that would like to stop it, although, having already triggered article 50, we would still have to get the consent of our EU partners. There is, then, a complete constitutional incoherence in imagining that the Bill and the way it is presented somehow leads to that dastardly outcome.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On my reckoning, about 12 people want to speak. I advise the House that it is reasonable for the Minister to have at least 20 minutes to reply to the various points that have been made—[Interruption.] Someone chunters from a sedentary position, “No more.” The Minister should certainly be allowed 20 minutes, and Members can do the arithmetic for themselves. I am encouraged, as I call possibly the most courteous Member of the House of Commons, Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Grieve]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall endeavour to practise courtesy by act rather than by anything else, in being brief.

It is a pleasure again to participate in this afternoon’s debate, which is wide-ranging and has moved away from the rather narrow focus of some of the perfectly sensible amendments that have been tabled and that are designed to explore the undoubted deficiencies in the legislation; for example, the Opposition have put forward sensible proposals in new clause 1. Those are matters that we have looked at for a considerable number of days.

I wanted to focus on an issue that has arisen this afternoon and is a particular concern to me. In doing so I do not want to repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said. I agree with every word he said, and there is no point in my saying it again. There is a separate angle, however, on which we might pause and reflect. New clause 17 raises the issue of whether we should have continued participation in the single market and customs union.

If we look at the Bill as drafted and at its original intention, particularly now that the pernicious effects of clause 9 have been removed, we can see that it is about the legal order of the United Kingdom after we have left with no deal at all. So an argument can be made that this legislation is perhaps not the most satisfactory place to try to bring in the single market and customs union. However, that raises an entirely legitimate issue. Ultimately, as we trundle on with the legislation it becomes more and more apparent how different it is from the Government’s intention regarding the end product that they want the country to enjoy.

The Prime Minister set out her vision in the Lancaster House and Florence speeches. As I have said before, but it is worth repeating, if she succeeded in achieving everything that she set out, there might well be broad consensus in the House, because we would lose those aspects of EU membership that we do not like and at the same time we would retain all the benefits of EU membership that we—or at least many of us, the vast majority of hon. Members—consider desirable.

The truth is that most of us—again, I suspect—in the House know that that is unlikely to be achieved. We are asking our EU partners to engage in the bending of the rules of the legal order, which is not something that can be readily obtained. We started out on this negotiation with a major fallacy: the EU can somehow be twisted around from matters of self-interest into entirely changing its nature. In fact, it is an international treaty organisation underpinned by law: that is what it is. Having visited Brussels on Monday, it was brought home to me—I already knew it—very clearly that that is indeed the nature of the entity with which we are dealing. Unless we are realistic about that we cannot hope to secure a reasonable outcome to our negotiations.

What troubles me particularly is the timing of all this. The reality is that the EU, for very good reasons, wants order. It is a legal order, and it wishes order to exist, even when countries are leaving it. The point was made to us that ultimately it would negotiate according to our red lines and, if we decide to put red lines down that make it impossible to reach the sort of agreement that the Prime Minister wants, we will not secure that agreement—it is very simple. On top of that—I would like to add this point to the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—all of this is likely to come to a head at a very late stage indeed for rational judgments by the House about what is in the national interest.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that in the end, because we are a sovereign Parliament, we are the only guarantor of our people’s rights. However, I am interested in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is saying about this matter, because the other danger that is lurking here is the fact that our courts may well decide that they have an obligation to maintain EU law even in the face of an Act of Parliament, and might strike down an Act of Parliament because, from reading the Bill, they see it as their obligation to retain certain principles of EU law. I like the declaration of incompatibility that my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting as a very suitable compromise that enshrines what we have.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, is a mini-speech, with more emphasis on the speech than on the mini.

[Mr Grieve]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point, which reinforces my impression that it is inadequate simply to say, “Because we are leaving we shall leave this to a later date.” I will return to that later.

We did actually, Mr Speaker, talk about this at some length in Committee. In Committee, as hon. Members may recall, I emphasised that one way out of this difficulty might be to move away from the charter and look at the general principles of EU law. We could allow them to continue to be invoked, in respect of retained EU law, which would include issues such as the laws which we have under the charter, until they were replaced. That seemed to me to be a stopgap. I emphasise that I put it forward as a stopgap—not as a long-term solution, but as a way of getting the Government off the hook of having to accept any part of the charter, because I know that one or two of my hon. Friends choke when they even mention that word. I have never shared that view—I think they should actually go and read the charter, because then they would realise it is rather a reasonable document. My suggestion provided a way forward, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General very kindly said that he would go away and give the matter some thought, the consequence of which was Government amendments 37 and 38.

I am sorry to start this Report stage with a bit of carping, because later I shall say some very nice things about the response of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to some of the representations that I made to them in Committee. Some very good things indeed have been done, for which I am grateful—I will talk about those when we come to the right point—but I think that the response on this matter is, frankly, rather paltry. They have provided a mechanism by which for three months—the period in which it is possible to carry out judicial review—after the exit date it will be possible to invoke these rights, but not in a way that challenges any primary legislation. It is a minuscule change, but minuscule though it may be, it is actually a little wedge in the door, because it represents quite a major surrender or change of principle on the part of the Government towards this issue, and to that extent I am delighted to welcome it. Nevertheless, as I think the Solicitor General knows very well, the proposal is not what I was asking for. The problem is that although it starts to remedy the situation, it does not go anything like far enough, particularly when it is not linked to a wider statement from the Government about how they want to go ahead and deal with this.

I had to make a decision about whether to table a further amendment to put to the House on Report. Having rebelled—there is no other way to describe it— against the Government, because that was what I undoubtedly did on clause 9, and indeed incited some of my colleagues to join me in doing so, because I thought that clause 9 was so deficient, it is not my desire to cause further stir, in the harmonious atmosphere of early January, by doing that again if I can possibly avoid it. It crossed my mind that two things appeared to me to militate against doing it. The first is this.

I have to say to the Solicitor General that I do not think that the Bill will pass through the upper House without this issue being considered. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Brexit takes place; it has to do with the state of certainty of law in this country, which is a matter to which plenty in the other place are capable of applying their minds. I very much hope that when the Bill goes to the Lords, they will look at the amendment that the Government have tabled and understand its spirit—it is well-intentioned, so I must welcome it—but perhaps decide that it might be capable of a little bit of development. Or, indeed, they may apply their legal minds to this matter and come up with an alternative that does respect—I want to emphasise this—some of the reasons, which I understand, why the Government do not wish to entrench these laws after we have gone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, what a rich vein. I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome the news that the Government are again considering prisoners’ right to vote. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may find that this is a matter on which public opinion and the mood in this House has shifted. It is high time that we remedied something that places us in a very small category of countries. Most countries manage to allow their prisoners to vote—certainly those sentenced to short terms of imprisonment—without the world coming to an end, and it is an important tool for both civic participation and rehabilitation.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A three-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech will now apply.

[Mr Grieve]

I want to support the Government in carrying out an efficient and effective Brexit but, after listening to some of the contributions this afternoon, I think I am living in wonderland.

I will focus solely on Lords amendment 2, particularly subsection (4). The first thing to understand is that, as matters stand, there will be a need not for resolutions of this House, but for primary legislation to complete the process. In fact, there will be a need for primary legislation even if we have no deal at all. I do not know when the Government want to deal with that. They could conceivably try to do it during the course of the great repeal Bill, but they have not suggested that that is what the great repeal Bill—which is, in fact, an entrenchment Bill—is all about. So it seems that if there is no deal at the end of the process, there will have to be primary legislation passed by this House, if that has not already been done.

Interestingly, far from the Lords trying to lead to great litigation, their view—if the Government bother to read Lord Hope’s speech—was that litigation could be avoided by tabling the amendment and providing for a resolution mechanism at the end. I can promise my hon. and right hon. Friends who think that there is some whizzo way of getting around the litigation that, if they do not follow proper constitutional process, there will be litigation, and that litigation will hold matters up.

Now, I am not so concerned about amendment 2. I am concerned about getting an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that, if there is no deal at the end of the process, which will be a very significant moment in this country’s history, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and vote on that. Far from that being an obstruction of the process, I would expect it to be part of the normal constitutional process and the Government to seek the endorsement of the House for that very significant act. I worry that my right hon. Friend—who, I think, personally may well agree with me—has been prevented from saying that at the Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I am not prepared to follow processes that appear to be, frankly, deranged.

There is a clear way of doing things. If we follow them, we will come up with the right decisions at each point; if we do not, we will mire ourselves in chaos. I want to support the Government, but I have to say, most reluctantly, that if we persist with this, I cannot support the Government this evening when it comes to amendment 2. I am very sorry about that. I would like to be able to support the Government because the critique of the Lords amendment has some force, but someone has to put down a marker that we have to follow a proper process in the way in which we carry out Brexit.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Grieve]

While we have to accept and must accept the referendum decision, is not the problem that, in the course of the campaign, statements were made by those advocating vote leave, which were, first, false and, secondly, in many cases unfulfillable? One thing that came out so clearly from this referendum campaign was the increasing disconnect between the public and those of us in this House who are, as the public would see it, in authority. What can we do and what should we do to restore that trust? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has behaved impeccably in this matter and I would like to thank him for his long service to this country, but if we do not restore that trust, the role of this House will, it seems to me, be fatally undermined.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoken for his chum as well?

Points of Order

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was an extremely well chosen and thoughtful point of order. I acknowledge that, as the right hon. Lady said, she very rarely raises points of order; her seriousness of purpose is, I think, respected in all parts of the House.

I will indeed convey that sentiment to the Lord Speaker. I think that the unhappiness is well known. It is a matter of fact that, among those affected, there will be very real consternation about this. That the individuals affected are a minority of the electorate is not in doubt, but they will be very unhappy about it, and that is not something that should be blithely dismissed by the Executive branch of our political system.

There will be those who think, “All that you do is get the business through and that is all that matters”, and who are quite hard-headed and perhaps even a bit cynical, but people ought to have regard to the views and interests of minorities. They might, on a particular issue, one day be in that position themselves; they will then want the very protection that the right hon. Members for Meriden and for Chesham and Amersham, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, are seeking. I will certainly relay the concern to the Lord Speaker.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that if one wished to add one’s name to amendments, as long as one did it the day before the day on which the Order Paper was to be published, that was sufficient. So I was a little surprised, on reading today’s Order Paper, to see that, despite the personal visit that I made yesterday to the Private Bill Office—no one suggested to me that I was too late to add my signature to a number of the amendments—my name does not appear at all. I wondered whether that was a matter on which you could shed any light, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We have been extremely well served, as always, by our Clerks, who do their business with great commitment and prowess, and I have just been advised on this matter. That advice is that I will cause the matter to be investigated. The truth is that, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea why the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s name has not been added to those amendments. One would assume that in the ordinary course of events it would be, so I am rather taken aback. His understanding of the normal practice is, as usual, quite correct. Let us have the matter looked into, but I hope that it will be trumpeted to the good people of the Beaconsfield constituency that he sought to have his name added to the amendments, and the work in progress is that he may yet succeed in that mission.

Davies Commission Report

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the Howard Davies proposals? If there is to be expansion at Heathrow, one key issue is that there must be environmental benefits for the surrounding area, which has been adversely affected by the operation of Heathrow for decades. I suspect that my constituents would have mixed views on the expansion of Heathrow, but one key issue for those who live closest to it is the extent to which their quality of life deteriorates because of heavy goods vehicle movements, congested roads, car parks and grubby and ill-controlled activities, which are probably far more deleterious to their standard of living than the noise from the aircraft themselves? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State, on grubby and ill-controlled activities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend takes me gently by surprise. I think it depends on the nature of the offence under the Abortion Act, but my recollection is that the procurement of an abortion illegally is a very serious offence. I will write to him as to the exact penalty.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the House would benefit from having a copy of the letter in the Library. We are grateful to the Attorney-General.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Department of Health seems to advise that it would be okay if neither of the two signing doctors had actually seen the woman referred for an abortion. Does the Attorney-General believe that that is some distance from a strict reading of the 1967 Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I hope that the benefit of this change to the law will be to emphasise the criminal nature of the conduct of a juror who fails to follow the judge’s directions and acts in a way that undermines the fairness of a trial process. At the same time, by providing that it is an indictable offence that is triable by jury, there will be better safeguards for jurors in terms of fairness if they are prosecuted as a result. I trust that the combination of those two things will enable judges to be more robust in their directions to the jury at the outset when explaining that it has an important function to perform, and that that must be performed within the framework that the judge lays down in his directions. In my experience, jurors are, for the most part, animated entirely by good will towards the public interest, so I feel that if we do that, some of the regrettable problems that we have had may be further reduced.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the House will agree unanimously that we are all now considerably better informed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The families have waited a long time, and I am very pleased that the inquest is going to take place. It is right that the coroner issued a warning on 11 February about reporting, and I issued a contempt advisory on 10 March. It is important that the issues that will be raised and considered at the inquests are not prejudged through comment in the media or social media, and that the lawyers representing the families, the coroner and the jury can get on with their work.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I think right hon. and hon. Members will have taken note of the substance of that reply.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Attorney-General for his comments. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) pointed out, we will soon mark the 25th anniversary of Hillsborough. It is important to remember that we lost 96 individual people, and that thousands more were terribly affected. Will the Attorney-General join me in remembering the people we lost and offer his support to the memorial events taking place over the next month or so?

Points of Order

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman a response, but if the Attorney-General wishes to speak at this stage he is most welcome to do so.

[The Attorney-General]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I try to pick my words with care so that the House is in no way misled. I am sure that the information can be supplied to my hon. Friend. I indicated that the letters were the collective acts of Government. It may be that we can go even further and identify who sent the letters, if they were Ministers. That is the proper answer to give. It was not the intention to try to conceal that information from him in any way.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Attorney-General. I was simply going to advise the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that these matters can of course always be the subject of further questioning. I know from experience that he is as tenacious in the Chamber as I have found him to be on the tennis court over the years, so I see no reason why he will not pursue these matters if he is so inclined.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

A National Audit Office report on the proceeds of crime shows that, as a result of poor co-ordination and a lack of leadership, out of every £100 generated in the criminal economy, as much as £99.64 is retained by the perpetrator. What is the Attorney-General doing to address those findings so that victims in north African and middle eastern emerging democracies can get their—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are fully seized of the purport of the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry at just about the same time as he has become seized himself.

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman shows some ingenuity in linking his question to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). I assure the hon. Gentleman that asset recovery is given a high priority and that a taskforce within Government is looking at how we can improve it overall. There are a number of interesting challenges, which go back long before this Government came into office. For example, there is a mismatch between the amounts ordered to be seized and the actual realisable amounts and, in some cases, the orders made bear very little relation to the assets available. We are looking at all those things and seeking to prioritise how we can identify those assets that can best be recovered. I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that so that he can be brought up to date on our thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

It is probably foolish to engage in speculation about precise figures, but I will simply say that it is recognised that there are likely to be substantial sums in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will take that as a no.

Points of Order

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In the first instance, I can ask the Attorney-General to respond, and we will see what happens.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for indicating to me a short time ago that he wished to make that important point. At the moment, I am not in a position to answer his question. He is absolutely right that the answer I gave him was based on information provided to me by the Crown Prosecution Service. He has given me some information that gives rise to a question as to whether that is accurate. I take that very seriously and the matter is being looked into urgently. When I have an answer, I will of course ensure that it is not only supplied to him, but made available to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman for today. I thank him for raising this important matter, which really is a public service. I am sure that clarity will be established, and hopefully very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am certainly mindful that in many of the contempt matters brought to my attention the problem has arisen in the period between arrest and charge. Of course, if the House were minded to change the law on anonymity, which has been floated previously in private Members’ business, that could be done by enacting legislation. However, let me make it quite clear that this would need a legislative solution, not one that I can in some way “magic up”. The law of contempt has to be applied free of all political considerations, and that is what I try to do as best I can.

[Mr Speaker]

I would not want the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) to feel socially excluded, so we will accommodate him, but he needs to be very brief.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the Serious Fraud Office’s ability to conduct a succession of large-scale inquiries.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

The undertaking is for up to £3.5 million for each of the next three years to be made available as and when required. When the SFO requires it, it will be made available.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I remind the House that, in addition to the two urgent questions granted today, there is a statement followed by a very heavily subscribed Second Reading debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The UQs will therefore be run strictly to time, but depending on the level of interest, it might not be possible to accommodate all colleagues who are interested. I shall do my best, and I invite the House to do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

No, I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the democratic mandate of this House is challenged. Parliamentary sovereignty remains. It is open to Parliament to decide not to change the law. However, if Parliament chooses not to implement the judgment, it would be a serious matter, because it would place the UK in breach of international obligations to which it is a signatory. I accept that other countries are in breach of their implementation obligations, but that does not provide an excuse for not honouring our own.

In addition, it is right to point out that only one other pilot judgment, besides the Greens and MT judgment, has not been implemented. That is in a case concerning Ukraine. There are, of course, many hundreds of judgments at various stages of implementation, but that is a slightly different issue.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s answers are invariably works of scholarship, from which no matter that he judges could be of any conceivable interest would ever be excluded.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney-General agree that there are two good reasons why we should implement legislation on prisoners’ voting rights? Firstly, we would be adhering to our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Secondly, it is a useful part of the rehabilitative process that prisoners do not lose all their rights when they go to prison, but rather lose their liberty. The opportunity to vote is actually quite helpful, as the South Africans have found out now that they have universal voting rights for prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

First, neither I nor anyone in my office was aware of the irregular payments that were made. They came to light subsequently on the appointment of the new director, and are a matter of great concern to me, as are all irregular payments. I am satisfied that the new director has put in place all necessary measures to ensure that such a matter will not occur again. The hon. Lady asked about dates. I would be happy to write to her so that she is aware of exactly when the matter came to light, although I am afraid I do not have that recollection in my mind at the moment. I will ensure that her point about the chief operating officer is also answered.

[Mr Speaker]

Generosity of spirit gets the better of me. Mr Robert Buckland.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that a request for further resources for the SFO to investigate the LIBOR scandal will be met favourably by the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

What happened last summer was that the perfectly sensible decision was made that the Financial Services Authority should initiate its regulatory inquiry, and should liaise with the SFO while it was being carried out until the regulatory investigation was finished. When it was finished, the SFO considered the matter, and has initiated a criminal inquiry.

That said, I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point: it is possible that we could spend more money on the SFO. I should also point out, however, that within the totality of funding for prosecutorial functions in England and Wales, the level of funding for the SFO is similar to that which prevailed under the last Government—and it is not, of course, the only prosecutor of fraud.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that we are now much better informed, but anybody would think that these lawyers are paid by the word.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

3. How many sentences he has asked the Court of Appeal to review because they appear to be unduly lenient since May 2010; and in what proportion of those cases the sentence was subsequently increased.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

In view of that intervention, I would simply add that the current position is that the closure process has been monitored and the DPP remains satisfied at present that in no case has the closure of the FSS had any impact on his ability to carry out prosecutions within the CPS.

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the Attorney-General, whom no one could ever accuse of excluding from his comprehensive answers any fact that he judges to be material. We are most grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I have no doubt at all that it will be made first on the Floor of the House, but I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady’s premises. The position is very straightforward. The SFO is doing a good job, but I think everybody agrees that we need to see ways of improving the fight against economic crime. To take the hon. Lady’s point to its logical conclusion, there should be no discussion in government or anywhere else about such structures because doing so might raise some uncertainty. I simply do not share that view. I am confident that we will come out with the correct outcomes and that they will enhance our capacity to deal with economic crime generally. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was trying to indicate gently that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) must not leave before the question has been concluded. I am sure that he is enjoying the exchanges.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In parts of the United Kingdom, there is widespread organised criminal activity. During the comprehensive spending review, what assurance can the Minister give us that those involved will not be able to gain yet more from their illegal and ill-gotten deeds and activities?