Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he says, we have all heard him raise this matter many times. I appreciate the urgency of Mr Jagtar Singh Johal’s situation, given that the death penalty is a possibility. The hon. Gentleman raises some important points that are indeed points for the Chair. I can answer one question quickly and simply: Mr Speaker has said many times that he expects Ministers to answer correspondence from Members of Parliament in a timely fashion. For the hon. Gentleman to have gone two months without acknowledgment of, or answer to, his letter is clearly not acceptable.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the accountability of a Minister who is not a Member of this House. That is a rather more difficult situation. He asks whether Mr Speaker can in some way summon the Foreign Secretary to this House. Under current regulations, no, he cannot, but it is normal for Ministers who are Members of the House of Lords to find different ways to demonstrate their accountability to the elected representatives of the people. Of course, questions can be asked in the other place, but that is not at all the same as a question being asked on behalf of a constituent by their Member of Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was my understanding that the Foreign Secretary had undertaken to appear regularly before that Committee; that would certainly be a way in which ministerial accountability could be demonstrated and undertaken. The exact status of the situation, I cannot answer for. It is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised important points. I know that Mr Speaker will be concerned about accountability, which is a matter for the Chair. I will ensure that he is aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I am certain that those on the Treasury Bench will convey to Foreign Office Ministers the concerns that have been expressed.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, have campaigned on behalf of Mr Johal, and I, too, have been dissatisfied with the response of the Foreign Office—over years, not just over the last few weeks. In conveying the concerns of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) to Mr Speaker, would you also say that they are not confined to him, or indeed to the SNP? They are felt across the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the situation. It is obvious that the entire House is concerned about this matter, and about the general matter of accountability. I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of that.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It might come as a surprise to any casual observers of our proceedings that a Bill, when formally presented, as the Bill has just been, might not be printed. There is probably a general assumption that, when a Bill is presented, it will be printed. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that not all Bills that are formally presented are in fact printed, so I say to him that I will look into the matter.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising the question of the accountability of the Home Office yet again. Like many colleagues, there are two locations in my constituency where there are 100 or so illegal migrants. So be it—we all have to carry our burden—but I have just heard that one of them will be doubled in size. When I attempted to find out from the Home Office what is planned, officials told me that they could not let me know for a week. When I went back and said that that was not good enough, they said that they would let me know as soon as possible, but it would be days. Can you give me guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to what I can do to accelerate the response time of officials at the Home Office, so that they are doing their jobs?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As a constituency MP, I find myself in precisely the same position as him—almost exactly as he has just related. I wish I had an answer to his question that I could give him from the Chair, but I do not. He has raised a very important point. I fully appreciate it, as do my constituents, and I will endeavour to find an answer for him.

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS BILL: PROGRAMME (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 September 2022 (Financial Services and Markets Bill: (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 22 September 2022 (Financial Services and Markets Bill: (Programme) (No.2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Lords Amendments 7, 10, 36, 1 to 6, 8, 9, 11 to 35 and 37 to 86.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Ruth Edwards.)

Question agreed to.

Mental Health Treatment and Support

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware, because you have chaired many of the debates, that there has been a campaign in this House for over a year to stop SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—which are used by very rich men to oppress free speech in this country. Just in the last hour or so, the High Court has ruled one of those SLAPPs cases out of order: the case of Mr Mohamed Amersi against the ex-Member of this House Charlotte Leslie has been struck down. In my view, that is a great victory for free speech. Because it is so important, I give notice that I will be raising the matter on the Adjournment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It of course needs no comment from the Chair, except to say that I think the whole House will agree with him that this is a good judgment and an important step forward. I do indeed recall chairing many debates on the matter, and I am sure the whole House will look forward to his raising it on the Adjournment. We will recommence the debate with Danny Kruger.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak. I will try to manage without a formal time limit because it is not normal to have one at this stage of dealing with Lords amendments, but I will introduce a time limit if we cannot have a bit of discipline. If everyone speaks for around four minutes, all colleagues will have a chance to speak, so let us try to do it without a formal time limit.

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

I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Unlike the Opposition, I take the view that this Bill is a serious attempt to deal with an almost intractable problem. Nobody should challenge that point. Nevertheless, we are a great nation, and our greatness rests on the fact that we take a moral stance on most things. That is not a formula for softness but it is an argument for rigour in what we do. Lord Kirkhope’s amendment 9 strips out the Government’s plans to create an offshore asylum-processing system, and I believe he is right. Asylum offshoring would be a moral, economic and practical failure. Previous international experience shows that to introduce it here would be an unmitigated disaster.

The first problem with offshoring is an ethical one. To get a sense of the issue, we have only to look at what happened in Australia when it adopted the same approach in 2013. It meant that children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors could be detained offshore. The Refugee Council of Australia has documented gut-wrenching stories of sexual, physical and mental abuse in the processing facilities. A 14-year-old girl who was held offshore for five years doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. Another child starved themselves near to death and had to be removed back to Australia.

Those were not isolated cases. In fact, there have been numerous reports of assaults and sexual abuse relating to Australia’s processing facility on Nauru. Between January and October 2015 alone—just a few months—there were 48 reports of assault and 57 reports of assault against a minor. That is what we appear to be trying to copy. We cannot risk creating a similar situation here. I ask the House to remember what happened to the views of migration around Europe when we saw the body of a drowned child on a Turkish beach. That is what would happen if such stories started to come out of a British offshoring facility.

The second problem with offshoring is its staggering cost. Australia ended up spending over £1 million per person detained offshore—around £4.3 billion for 3,127 asylum seekers. That is 25 times higher per head than what we spend now. We would expect to have many more applicants than Australia had. Last year alone we had 50,000 applicants. Despite what was said earlier, the Australians have learned the lesson. They have wound down their policy, shut down their processing centre in Papua New Guinea and have not sent any new asylum seekers there since 2014.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is it about the Division?

[Mr Davis]

It is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I had proposed only to hear points or take questions to the Lord President from those on the Front Benches, but if the two right hon. Gentlemen who have caught my eye, the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), are asking specifically about the narrow point that the Lord President has brought to the Chamber, I will hear them.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will resist quoting page 688 of “Erskine May” to the Lord President, but can he give us an answer to this question? He has told us about the financial numbers, but will we have an impact assessment on the number of lives lost as a result of this policy, and will the motion be amendable?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will allow that question because it is very specific.

Scotland Act 1998: Scottish Civil Service

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very serious point of order. I can assure him that I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is saying. I think that he, being a very experienced parliamentarian, understands the side of the line on which he must stay, as far as mentioning sensitive matters and matters connected with courts, and so on.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have, I think, brought whistleblower views to the attention of this House on about a dozen occasions in the last 20 or 30 years and, on every single occasion, I have protected the innocent people involved.

The download that I am talking about—Sue Ruddick’s telephone download—is held by the Scottish police, so the accuracy of this account can be checked if they need to. Alex Salmond has asserted that there has been, and I quote,

“a malicious and concerted attempt to….remove me from public life in Scotland”

by

“a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP”,

who set out to “damage” his

“reputation, even to the extent of having”

him “imprisoned.”

These are incredibly grave charges. The whistleblower clearly agrees with those charges. He or she starts their communication with the assertion that the evidence provided, and I quote,

“point to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy.”

Since I received the data, it looks as though the Committee has received at least some of it themselves, and some has also been put in the public domain by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), a previous Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government. It was described anonymously by one of the Committee members as

“just private conversations that we had no business intruding on”.

Well, I will let the House be the judge of that.

No single sequence of texts is going to provide conclusive proof of what the whistleblower described as a “criminal conspiracy”, but it does show a very strong prima facie case, which demands further serious investigation, by which I mean, at the very least, a thorough review of all the emails and other electronic records for the relevant personnel at all relevant times.

For example, these texts show that there is a concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints. The messages suggest that SNP chief executive Peter Murrell co-ordinated Ruddick and Ian McCann, the SNP’s compliance officer, in the handling of specific complainants. On 28 September, a month after the police had started their investigation of the criminal case, McCann expressed great disappointment to Ruddick that someone who had promised to deliver five complainants to him by the end of that week had come up empty, or “overreached”, as he put it. One of the complainants said to Ruddick that she was

“feeling pressurised by the whole thing rather than supported”.

The day following the Scottish Government’s collapse in a judicial review in January 2019, Ruddick expressed to McCann the hope that one of the complainants would be

“sickened enough to get back in the game.”

Later that month, she confirmed to Murrell that the complainant was now “up for the fight” and

“keen to see him go to jail”.

Ruddick herself, in one of her texts, expressed nervousness about

“what happens when my name comes out as [redacted] fishing for others to come forward”.

Note, again, that this was after the criminal investigation into Salmond had commenced. This is improper, to say the least. Contact with, and influence of, potential witnesses is totally inappropriate once a criminal investigation is under way. That was known inside the SNP itself.

Text messages reveal that at an SNP national executive committee meeting early in January 2019, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) raised concerns among staff at Westminster that SNP headquarters were engaged in “suborning” of witnesses, while on 28 August 2018, a senior member of SNP staff in this building described in an email the SNP headquarters move against Salmond as a “witch-hunt”.

Shortly after charges were brought against Salmond, Peter Murrell sent messages saying that it was a

“good time to be pressurising”

detectives working on the case, and that the more fronts Salmond was having to “firefight” on,

“the better for all complainers.”

When the inquiry put those messages to Mr Murrell, he said that they were “quite out of character”. That is no defence even were it true, but, having seen the evidence of other messages, it seems to me that they were all too much in character for Mr Murrell. In a Committee evidence session on 8 December last year, Mr Murrell replied under questioning that there were no more messages of the type already in the public domain from January 2019.

That statement, delivered under oath, is hard to reconcile with the dozens of messages stretching over a period of months from September 2018 that I have now seen. There is more, but it would take the whole debate to read them out. The Committee needs to gain access to all this information. The anonymous Committee member who described them as “just private conversations” should understand that meddling in an ongoing police inquiry is at best improper, and at worst criminal, so it requires proper investigation. If the Committee does not feel it can do the job, perhaps it should ask the police to do it instead.

That brings us to the complaints process that Mr Salmond was subjected to. This process was new. Created in late 2017, it was different from existing Scottish Government complaints procedures in a number of ways, including being retrospective, lacking a mediation procedure and, extraordinarily, applying to previous Ministers but not to previous civil servants. The procedure was shared with the head of propriety and ethics in Whitehall, who expressed discomfort with the proposals and specifically asked whether they were only to apply to Ministers, not civil servants. As far as I can tell, she did not get a reply. It is hard to imagine a Department in Whitehall essentially ignoring concerns expressed by the head of propriety and ethics, which is one of the reasons that I want Whitehall to review the checks and balances built into the Scottish civil service.

The Scottish Government also ignored their own new policy and appointed an investigating officer who, it emerged, had had prior contact with the complainants, and not just any contact—a potential complainant was asked for their input on the draft procedure before they had formally made their complaint. They did not consult women’s advocacy groups, which would have been proper. They did consult trade unions, but not in a proper or timely fashion. Instead, input was sought from the very first complainant whose case would be investigated. Mr Salmond sought judicial review of the process, and in due course, this complaints procedure and process was judged by Lord Pentland in the highest civil court in Scotland to be “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted with apparent bias”—an astonishing judgment, backed up by the maximum possible punitive award of costs.

The judicial review of 2018 led to further extraordinary behaviour by the Scottish Government. In her evidence before the Holyrood inquiry, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said that her Government’s external counsel were “confident” at the outset of the civil case that they would be successful. That is a significant mischaracterisation of the advice. The Government’s external counsel had identified a central vulnerability in the Scottish Government’s case. The complaints procedure under which Salmond was investigated had a real risk of being found to be unfair. Counsel stated:

“the vulnerability arises from the Procedure itself, and not from its implementation in this particular case.”

We now know that counsel came to that conclusion without being given the full facts of the case—facts that, in due course, took it from being an arguable case to a completely unarguable one.

External counsel Roddy Dunlop QC gave that first assessment of their chances in late September. By the end of October, he is clearly worried that the Government had not disclosed important facts about their operation of the process and says that at that point:

“it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible.”

Within a few days, he is advising that the “least worst” option is to concede the case. By 14 December, the obvious failure of the Government to meet their duty of candour leads to a commission and diligence committee being appointed to establish the real facts.

On 19 December, after the first meeting of that commission, the Government’s external counsel tells the Government:

“With regret, our dismay at this case deepens even further...Suffice to say that we have each experienced extreme professional embarrassment as a result of assurances which we have given, both to our opponents and the court, which assurances have been given on instruction, turning out to be false as a result of the revelation of further documents.”

The Scottish Government pressed on despite the counsel’s continued concerns about their “untenable position”. Most remarkably, the counsel told the Scottish Government that they were “personally horrified”, and that they could

“no longer rest on pleadings that they knew to be untrue.”

The defence had collapsed because of the Government’s lack of candour. Mr Salmond was very fortunate that the Government’s counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop, now Scotland’s leading QC, behaved with impeccable honour and honesty throughout. Let us be clear: this is not just a case of a Government who failed to provide information because they could not manage their own filing systems. This was a Government who actively withheld important, relevant information. In one case, a critically relevant email was actively removed from an information bundle that was going to the court and that had already been approved by the Government counsel. I do not know who took that email out—I have it here. I do not know who gave the instruction, but in my view the removal of that document would be a summary dismissal offence and possibly a criminal offence. At the very least, it would be a contempt of court. Yet over his three evidence sessions, the Lord Advocate, the Chief Law Officer of Scotland, did not see fit to mention this crucial incident to a parliamentary Committee trying to get to the truth. It came to light just 10 days ago, when the Government were forced to publish their legal advice.

It was only in January 2019, after months of increasingly damning advice, that the Scottish Government faced the inevitable and conceded the judicial review. Costs were awarded against the Scottish Government at a punitive level reserved for defences conducted “incompetently or unreasonably”. The Scottish public will now pay the bill for their Government’s dogged pursuit of a doomed case.

More than that, the Scottish Government behaved in a way that was misleading to the court in a case that had serious implications for the criminal case that was to follow. The charges in that case were very serious. Had Mr Salmond been guilty of them, he would, quite rightly, have gone to prison, and his reputation would have been destroyed forever. Yet the Government were willing to play fast and loose with the facts in a way that, if they had succeeded, would have jeopardised the whole process of justice. For me, that is even bigger than the grotesque waste of £1 million. As it was, of course, he was exonerated on all charges by a predominantly female jury in a criminal court presided over by a female judge.

The Scottish Government had committed abuses of process in the initial investigation. They had failed to live up to their duty of candour in court with an indefensible case. At this point, we might have expected some contrition. Instead, the Scottish Government have now set their sights on impeding the Committee tasked with investigating the whole affair. The Members of the Holyrood inquiry are valiantly struggling to do their job, or at least some of them are, but time and again they have been frustrated. The inquiry has had to cope with evasiveness from the Scottish Government and the constant threat of legal action by the Crown Office, the Scottish equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Service.

First, the Crown Office intervened by barring the publication of the evidence of Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff. This evidence is critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code. It is clearly in the public interest to see this evidence. However, it is not allowed to be published, so I have a suggestion for the Committee. I have it on good authority that there exists from 6 February 2018 an exchange of messages between civil servants Judith McKinnon and Barbara Allison suggesting that the First Minister’s chief of staff is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond. The investigating officer complained, “Liz interference v. bad”. I assume that that means very bad. If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February, not in April, as she has claimed on oath. The First Minister also tied herself to that April date in both parliamentary and legal statements. She was, of course, aware earlier than that. The question is just how aware and how much earlier.

Secondly, the Crown Office intervened to see that the evidence of the former First Minister was redacted, supposedly to protect the identity of complainants, which is the point that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made quite properly earlier. Again, that redacted evidence focused on whether or not the First Minister breached the ministerial code, but The Spectator magazine had already published online Mr Salmond’s entire evidence with only a single paragraph redaction.

When The Spectator went to court to secure the publication of that evidence, the Crown Office made no objection whatsoever to the paragraphs that it bullied the Holyrood inquiry to redact. That leaves an absurd situation where the inquiry cannot speak about evidence that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The redactions are therefore clearly not designed to protect the complainants; they are designed to protect the First Minister from accountability to the inquiry.

Thirdly, the Scottish Government withheld the damning legal advice given in the civil case. It was only with the threat of a no confidence vote in the Deputy First Minister that the Committee could see part, and I emphasise part, of that advice. However, what we do know is that across November and December 2018 there were a series of meetings where it was decided to persist with the judicial review. That was against clear advice from counsel.

Rather extraordinarily, those meetings appear to have been largely unminuted. I recommend that they ask for the junior counsel’s notes. It was only at the last possible minute that the Government conceded the case, and only after counsel had threatened to resign. The First Minister told the Committee:

“I am not aware that they threatened to resign”,

but she will have seen a report that clearly states that counsel

“in light of their professional duties”

and their view of the case

“will require to withdraw from acting on January 3”.

Fourthly, the Scottish Government have repeatedly denied the Committee relevant evidence for what they claim to be legal reasons. That position is nonsensical. Of course there should be protections over sensitive material exposed in criminal trials—we agree on that—but those protections should not prevent a parliamentary committee from doing its job of holding Government to account.

Together, those form a litany of acts that repeatedly frustrated the Committee and denied the public full transparency and accountability. They fit squarely into a pattern of evasiveness and abuse of process that the Scottish Government have woven from the start. As I said in opening, the proper place for these matters to be determined is Holyrood. It would be eminently preferable for MSPs to be exposing any relevant evidence, but given the British Government’s failure in 1998 to give sufficient power to the Scottish Parliament, and given that the Scottish Parliament derives its authority from this House, certain evidence must now enter the public domain here.

The Holyrood inquiry has exposed some critical failings at the heart of the Scottish Government. They failed with the complaints process, they failed to heed legal advice, and they failed to honour commitments to ensure a transparent parliamentary review, but perhaps more worryingly the inquiry has revealed the limits of what the Scottish Parliament can expose. There is a deficit of power, and with it comes a deficit of accountability.

At the very least, I ask the Minister to consider an amendment to the 1998 Act to deliver separation of powers to Scotland—something that I believe a previous Justice Minister, the hon. Member for East Lothian, has written to the Justice Committee about already—to strengthen the civil service, and to reinforce the powers of the Scottish Parliament, correcting the fundamental power imbalance between the Executive and the legislature in Scotland. Let us give the Scottish Parliament the power to do the job.

Freedom of Speech (Universities)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

1st reading & Programme motion & 1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes.

I commend your efficiency, Madam Deputy Speaker. The principal reason that our kingdom is a great nation can be encompassed in one word: freedom—freedom of action, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom under the law. Of all those freedoms, the most precious is freedom of speech. It has been fundamental to the development of our culture, our society, our literature, our science and our economy. Indeed, our national wealth today owes more to the free exchange of ideas than to the exchange of goods. Freedom of speech is fundamental to everything we have, everything we are and everything we stand for.

Over 300 years ago, it was this Parliament that enshrined our right to freedom of speech in law. The 1689 Bill of Rights became a symbol of hope for the rights of people everywhere throughout the globe. Since then, peoples and democracies the world over have followed our example. When representatives of the globe gathered in 1948, in the aftermath of unthinkable destruction and despair, we as one people—one human race—said, “Never again.” Fundamental to this united course of humanity was article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Today that is under threat, and it is under threat in the very institutions where it should be most treasured: our universities.

Freedom of speech only matters when it is controversial —when it is challenging. That is why the greatest characterisation of free speech is attributed to Voltaire by his biographer, who said:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

In one version, it was notably:

“I may detest what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

Voltaire understood that creativity and progress in a society depend on acts of intellectual rebellion, dissent, disagreement and controversy, no matter how uncomfortable, but today the cancel culture movement think it is reasonable to obliterate the views of people they disagree with, rather than challenge them in open debate. They are wrong. Why? Because the unwillingness to hear uncomfortable opinion and the refusal of platforms to people they disagree with is damaging to us all. Imagine if their censorious predecessors in the established Churches had been successful in their attempts to supress Galileo and Darwin. People would still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe or that the human species was created on the sixth day from clay. Of course, those ideas are ridiculous, but such falsehoods were conquered only through the freedom to speak truth to power and to shine light in the dark with the ability to advocate for science and reason.

Today, there is a corrosive trend in our universities that aims to prevent anybody from airing ideas that groups disagree with or would be offended by. Let us be clear: it is not about protecting delicate sensibilities from offence; it is about censorship. We can protect our own sensibilities by not going to the speech. After all, nobody is compelled to listen. But when people explicitly or indirectly no-platform Amber Rudd, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens and others, they are not protecting themselves; they are denying others the right to hear those people and even, perhaps, challenge what they say.

Let us repeat our thought experiment—our conjecture —in a modern context. Germaine Greer wrote the pivotal book on feminism and was its most powerful and effective advocate. Peter Tatchell was and is an unbelievably brave and very effective campaigner on gay rights and a host of civil freedoms. Peter Hitchens is a professional iconoclast who has challenged overmighty Government of all colours through the decades. Imagine what would have happened if they and their allies had been prevented from pursuing their causes in the public domain. We would have a very different society today, and not a better one. The chilling effect on free speech would be disastrous, and the impact on academic freedom would be catastrophic. Its cost is already too high.

Before I leave this subject, what about Amber Rudd? She was no-platformed for her connection to the Government’s handling of the Windrush scandal, yet it was a whole year after she had been explicitly cleared by an investigation that found that she had not been supported as she should have been by the Home Office. In her case, it was not just speech denied but justice denied.

Today, views expressed in a recent survey commissioned by Britain’s biggest university academic union showed that Britain has the second-lowest level of academic freedom in all Europe. Just last month, a report by Civitas found that more than a third of our universities impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech—including, I am ashamed to say, Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews. The fact is that a number of our international allies today protect freedom of speech much better than we do. Some have it specifically written into their country’s constitution, and others put it explicitly into law. Ireland, for example, has the Universities Act 1997, which protects

“the freedom, within the law, in…teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the university, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”.

Although in the UK we theoretically have laws protecting freedom of speech, in practice they are buried in education Acts, resulting in the protections not being widely known and universities not always upholding their duties. That is why I am proposing this Bill.

What does this Bill set out to do? It would, in effect, make universities responsible for upholding free speech throughout their campuses. Freedom of speech is not, of course, absolute. With rights come responsibilities, so speech that is illegal—incitement to violence, for example—would of course be forbidden, but speech that is merely unpopular with any sector of the university would not be proscribed. Controversial views and the challenging of established positions would not be proscribed.

Although we may not agree or approve of what is being said, the right to free speech is the foundation stone of our democracy.  To stand idly by while that foundation is being eroded, is a dereliction of our duty. The Bill makes it the absolute duty of every university authority to protect that most fundamental of our freedoms: the right to free speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr David Davis, Robert Halfon, Esther McVey, Chris Green, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Ben Bradley, James Grundy, Andrew Lewer, Craig Mackinlay, James Sunderland, Lee Anderson and Philip Davies present the Bill.

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 240).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

In order to prepare the Chamber for the next item of business, we will now suspend the sitting for three minutes.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and David Davis

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Later today, we are considering the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. Historically, before the first proceedings on the Finance Bill, what is known as a general amendment of the law motion is put before the House. It gives Members cover to table amendments dealing with tax administration and relief not otherwise authorised by the Ways and Means resolutions. Former Chancellor Philip Hammond chose not to bring forward such a motion in respect of the November 2017 Finance Bill. Bluntly, that was a pretty grubby trick, and I am afraid that his successors in the Treasury have also failed to provide such a resolution ever since.

By not bringing forward an amendment of the law resolution, the Government have in effect shut down rights that the House has enjoyed for many centuries. Members’ voices must be heard on important matters of taxation. The Government cannot continue to abuse their power to curtail the rights of the House; the House must have an opportunity to put this right.

My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is this: can the House authorities look at addressing this issue, to ensure that Members can properly fulfil their role and are free to amend future Finance Bills as they see fit? I shall also raise this matter with the Procedure Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for having given notice of it. He is absolutely right in his analysis, but there is nothing disorderly in the lack of an amendment of the law resolution among the Budget resolutions. Had it been disorderly, it would not have been allowed; it was allowed, and is not disorderly. He is correct that the actions that have been taken limit the scope for amending the Finance Bill. He asks me if the House authorities will look into this; I think he has found for himself the correct solution in asking the Procedure Committee to look at it. I am quite sure that the Chair of the Procedure Committee will have been made aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s very realistic concerns, and will take the matter forward; I certainly hope so.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).