European Union (Referendum) Bill
Debate between John Hemming and Peter Bone(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states:
“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Believe it or not, Brussels is a place. If we have a regulation rather than a directive, the regulation automatically overrides domestic law. Because the Bill of Rights was established as part of the Glorious Revolution, which was a popular revolution, certain changes to our constitution should inherently warrant a referendum. Hence I was pleased to support the previous version of this Bill, which is the same as this version, and having a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.
A particular strength is that the Bill puts a timetable on changes. Some changes need to happen. For instance, when this was all initially brought together, nobody would have thought that we would be encouraging people to come here to sell The Big Issue, yet by selling that paper or running a nonsensical or otherwise unprofitable scrap metal deal, people qualify for tax credits and get a lot more money from them than they do from The Big Issue or whatever it may be. People migrate here to be officially poor. Nobody would ever have thought that was sensible, and that sort of thing needs to change.
Having seen the difficulties caused by the previous Labour Government’s not maintaining interim rules on migration from eastern Europe, I doubt whether anyone here would accept that if we added Turkey and Ukraine to the EU, we should add them with the same rules on freedom of movement that apply elsewhere. I do not think anyone argues for that, so changes are obviously needed in the operation of the EU.
My personal view is that if we are going to have a Common Market that is really a common market, we need systems for determining the rules. When Margaret Thatcher introduced a federal Europe by introducing qualified majority voting as a result of the Single European Act, it was in many ways a rational process because we needed a system for working out the rules. I personally support having a more democratic process through the European Parliament, but I do not support an ever-closer union, because I do not believe that is what we want. We do not want to homogenise the European area.
There are debates and problems that arise from the way in which structures have been set up. One relates to human rights, for instance. I am a supporter of civil liberties and human rights, but I think the judicial activism in the Council of Europe—a different body, of course, from the EU—has been quite problematic. The solution, however, is democracy: using the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to control the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights. It is not just to try to find some way out of a system that, apart from in some limited circumstances—prisoner votes, for instance—worked reasonably well. There are cases where it clearly does not work, but there are ways of dealing with them.
A referendum is definitely a very good way forward because it will enable us to have that debate. UKIP has recommended being in the European economic area, but the difficulty with that is that control on membership of the EU is completely lost because members of the EU have the right to veto additional members, but members of the EEA have to live with whatever comes out of the EU. At the end of the day, if we were not in the EU, we would be part of some other structure. It is unlikely to be invented as a new exercise; it is more likely that it would be based on the EEA. I do not necessarily believe that we always have to remain within the EU, but I am inclined to support the EU and its structures, while wanting definite changes to their operation.
John Hemming
It is a question of buyers and sellers. Normally, selling something is a bit harder than buying it. People will sell things quite happily, but it is one thing to sell to Germans in German and another to buy them in English. There is some difficulty with the idea that our exports would simply be taken as read. I do not accept that people so want to purchase our exports that they would do exactly what we wanted. If we look at the EEA, we find that Norway contributes a lot of money to the EU through its EEA membership. The argument that not being in the EU would save us money is not necessarily a valid one. I do not take the view that suddenly everybody would bend over backwards to do exactly what we want, but that does not necessarily mean that we should go into the negotiations saying that we will swallow whatever comes out of this. The Opposition’s view that we should never stand up for anything because we might lose is not mine.
I was very pleased when the Government pulled us out of supporting the eurozone financial arrangements beyond supporting the International Monetary Fund. That was a sensible decision. In the dying days of the last Government, when Labour lost the election, they underwrote things, but doing so is actually taking on a big risk.
Bill of Rights
Debate between John Hemming and Peter Bone(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Hemming
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is completely wrong to be made to agree not to talk to one’s MP. I also think that that process of bullying is a contempt of Parliament and that action should be taken by Parliament to deal with it.
The note continues:
“I explained to Father to think carefully about his actions especially the impact on the child”.
It goes on to talk about other children getting hold of this and causing difficulties, but talking to one’s MP does not inherently mean that something will enter Parliament; it merely means getting additional support and explanations. The note goes on:
“Father said that he went to the media because he wanted to clear his name”—
which is fair enough—
“having suffered negative coverage in the media at the time of his trial. I stated that I understood why he did it, but stressed it was the potential impact on his child that he must give consideration to.”
He has been portrayed by the media as a rapist and wants to get publicity that says that he is not. I find it odd that it is thought that trying to get publicity to clear his name would cause problems for his child.
The note continues:
“Mr Grove joined me, whilst I was speaking to Father in the waiting area, and reiterated the danger in Father in having any contact with John Hemming. I advised Father that he must have faith in his legal team, and that contacting 3rd parties such as John Hemming, would not be consistent with working alongside his legal team. I stressed that John Hemming would not assist him any better than his legal team, at the fact finding hearing. I urged him against such further contact and sought his confirmation as to whether he was agreeable to the preamble to the order. Father at first said that he would agree to it but was not happy about it. I stressed that I needed to be certain that he was in full agreement to it, and after Mr Grove had spoken to Father about this, as mentioned above, Father stated clearly that he would agree to it, and appreciated the point that I was making.”
The essence of it is that he has no real choice. If he does not agree to it, the local council, of which I used to be deputy leader, would take action to take his child into care.
On the processes of councils, it is interesting that I have discovered that their senior management and councillors have no knowledge of what is really going on in social services departments throughout the country on a day-to-day basis. There is no real scrutiny in the councils, and the fact that elected officials are in charge of them does not result in any proper scrutiny.
That is one example where it is obvious that action was wrongly taken to bully somebody into agreeing not to contact me. I have to be very careful with the example of another of my constituents, because proceedings are continuing, so I shall have to refer to historic information. It may be best if I do not name this constituent, because it will save difficulties. She is 26 years old and has mild learning difficulties. She came back to Birmingham, having been separated from her family 10 years ago. A consultant psychiatrist’s report quotes the police in relation to the situation faced by my constituent, who was on the electoral role in my constituency for the general election. I should also add that Acocks Green is part of my constituency and it has an Iceland shop.
The report states:
“Police records made available to me via the instructing Solicitors provide details of the incident on 8/10/09, reported as an abduction.”
They say that she was abducted by her family. The report states that the description from the police was that she was
“out shopping in Acocks Green Village, with 2 other residents”
from her home. It goes on to say that, while in Iceland, she
“saw one of her sisters. The sister asked the carer for contact details but this was refused. She left the shop in tears. In the aftermath of this incident”
she
“and her party were walking away from ‘Iceland’ a silver car pulled over, containing”
her “two brothers.” The report goes on to say that
“it is described in the Police report that when the silver car pulled over”
she
“ran and hugged one of the males believed to be her brother, before getting into the car and being driven away. A history of”
her
“being the subject of an allegation of forced marriage was mentioned. Concerns were mentioned in the Police report that family will try to take her out of the country,”
which is refuted by the family.
The report continues:
“It was stated ‘the Airport Unit at Birmingham Airport was informed so that any immediate attempts to remove”
her
“from the country could be identified.’
It goes on to say that she
“was found by the Police at her mother’s home address in Sparkhill, Birmingham. A large number of family members were present and a party atmosphere was described. It was stated that”
she
“‘was unequivocal that she wished to remain with her parents’ and when it was explained by police that it was not possible but she could remain with her sister she was very excited. It was also stated ‘it was established that there was no legal authority to remove”
her
“to the care of Social Services and no authority to use force to do so.’”
She was separated from her family for 10 years and found them near where they live. She ran into the car with her brothers, went to her parents’ house and there was a party because they had found her after 10 years. They went to court and a social worker from Birmingham—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make sure that this is not sub judice and not active before the court.
John Hemming
This particular part is not active. It is a distinct proceeding that relates to a decision taken in 2009. It is important that hon. Members gain an understanding of the basis on which these decisions are taken. It is said in the Court of Protection that decisions are taken via the judge, who relies on an expert witness. I will read out the expert’s report that empowered the local authority to get a decision from the judge to put my constituent in a home. The report has a heading and includes the names of a social worker and the witness, but I shall not mention them. The specific question was: where does she want to live? It went on:
“Does the service user understand the information necessary to make the decision at this time?”
The answer given was “Yes” and the report said that she had
“listened and quickly responded that she had heard but wanted to stay with her family.”
It is clear, therefore, that she had a view of what she wanted.
The report also asked:
“Can the service user retain the information for long enough to make this decision?”
The answer given was that she
“is quickly stating yes, she is not giving reasoning or considering risks which she herself has previously expressed relating to potential forced marriage and not wanting contact with family members.”
The report went on to ask:
“Can the service user weigh up the information in order to make this decision?”
The answer given was that she
“is not weighing up information about different options for her accommodation. She will only state she wants to live with her mum and dad or sisters. She said that she likes to make people happy and that she will be happy if her family are happy. Her family will be sad and angry if she leaves so she would like to stay with them. I suggested she could have continued contact with her family even if living elsewhere but”
she
“said this would make them angry.”
The report concluded:
“The result of this Capacity assessment is that in relation to deciding accommodation”
she “does not have Capacity.”
That is not really a long assessment in terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where in the assessment is there an attempt to assist her in making her decision? There is no record of it whatsoever. The assessment is given as a sufficient basis to, basically, imprison her. It was in secret and there was no accountability and no second opinion at that stage.
I wrote to a Minister who told me to write to the Care Quality Commission, which told me to write to the solicitors, who did not respond. I wrote to the council, which told me: “The judge has banned us from talking to you.” I wrote to the Official Solicitor—this is a mental capacity case and the Official Solicitor has been appointed to deal with her best interests—and I got a letter back that said:
“You are correct when you suggest that I take the view that I am not accountable to you as an MP for the way in which I act in individual cases.”
We have a sort of vacuum here. There is no proper accountability in this area whatsoever. Her sisters were talking to me and were threatened that they would be in contempt of court if they continued to do so. One of the sisters is a constituent and another one lives just outside my constituency. We have here another contempt of Parliament, where effort is being put into stopping external scrutiny of the processes.
In the case I am talking about, a large sum of money has been spent on keeping this particular girl in the custody of the state—she is effectively a secret prisoner. The family has expressed the view that the true reason she was taken into care some 10 years ago was to prevent the investigation of an allegation of sexual assault against a member of staff of the city council. They think that the reason this kicked off is that, when she came back to Birmingham, someone did not want the investigation of the sexual assault from 10 years ago to kick off. I have seen some of the police records, and the family have a reasonable case for saying that that might be the motivation underlying such a massive expenditure of public money. Whatever way we look at the matter, this is a dreadful case and it is very clear what is going on. It has been said that her father is a risk to her. However, he died last July—possibly partly as a result of the stress of the case—so he is not much of a risk now. It is therefore difficult to understand what the justification is for what has been done.
John Hemming
The Official Solicitor’s answer is that he is accountable to the court. However, I cannot see where the real scrutiny of that process is. Let us consider the case I mentioned earlier—the £37,000 case—which also involved the Official Solicitor. Obviously, Alastair Pitblado does not trundle around the country like Father Christmas, visiting every court for a few seconds. We are talking about members of his staff, who will vary in calibre. As far as I can see, there is no real scrutiny of the Official Solicitor. Yes, the court may spot something, but it is very difficult. Who is actually acting to protect somebody against what the Official Solicitor does? That is a very difficult question. In addition, I have asked if I can go and see the constituent concerned and have been refused. So, someone is being held incommunicado from her Member of Parliament.
On the issues surrounding what can be done as a last resort, I shall discuss another constituent: Michael Singleton. His mum was very surprised that he had been jailed for five years, given that the allegation was that he had intentionally set fire to the house they were living in and had gone back to bed in the same house. She came to see me and we filled in the forms for him to appeal to the criminal Court of Appeal as a litigant in person, after which he was released. That shows the importance of having the last resort because the state would have wasted a lot of money keeping him locked up when there was nothing to be gained from doing so. It was lucky that that case was not covered by any confidentiality and that no one was trying to ban him from talking to me or his mum or anything like that, and he was therefore released.
The other person I have mentioned is still basically in the power of the state, and the people concerned are banned from coming to talk to me. Therefore, I cannot give them any advice on how they might be able to appeal the process and challenge things. I do not have a degree in law, although I have a certain amount of experience with it. My degree is more science-based. I shall also mention another, more recent constituency case. I will not name the person concerned because it might be sub judice. We are trying to get it to be sub judice.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite proper to refer to cases to illustrate the general debate, but this is a wider debate? He should not spend too much time on any single case because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
John Hemming
I will speed up a bit. Dr Waney Squier is another example of someone who, to clear her name, needs access to secret material that does not affect any children or parents. However, she cannot get access to that.
We should consider again the wider questions of court decisions in respect of contact with Members of Parliament and others. I have here a case from 2005—folio No. 773. It is an injunction that says that if someone disobeys this order, they may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or fined or their assets may be seized. I am not going to name the parties in that case because more research needs to be done into it. However, without me putting this into parliamentary proceedings, I cannot even write to the people involved. Obviously, an ordinary letter not connected with proceedings in Parliament is not covered by the Bill of Rights. Paragraph (1) of the document concerned states:
“Neither the Defendant nor any third party with notice of the Injunction may communicate with any third party regarding these proceedings in general and the potable water tanks or system referred to in the Injunction in particular.”
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt again. I want to go back to my previous point: we must not deal with active cases. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is not active?
John Hemming
The case has not been active to my knowledge since 2006. It is definitely not active now. I think the case ended in 2006—the date of the injunction—partly because of the trap that the individual concerned has found himself in.
Information for Backbenchers on Statements
Debate between John Hemming and Peter Bone(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who made some interesting points. In some respects, I wish that he had been here in the previous Parliament, because his frustration would have been extreme.
I have been very impressed by all the speeches made by new Back Benchers. It is a great tribute to them and a safeguard that this Parliament really will be the home of democracy. It would be wrong not to acknowledge your presence here tonight, Mr Speaker, for the whole debate, thus giving it added impetus. That is much appreciated, as is the fact that the Leader of the House has stayed here for the whole debate, as has the shadow Leader of the House, who, in one of the most helpful comments, praised my hon. Friend the Member for Hollobone Central for introducing it. I always regard him as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), and he introduced the debate in absolutely the right style and manner. In years to come, people will look back to his speech as a reference on this very important matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) has also stayed here for the whole debate. Of course, we hope, as the Backbench Business Committee, that we will kick the football to him to look at when his new Committee is formed. While I am praising hon. Members who have spoken previously, it would be wrong of me not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). We go back a very long way from my time in Wales. I am pleased to see him in the House, and he will be an active and able Member.
Probably the last hon. Member to speak tonight will be the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the new Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. She has got off to an absolutely flying start, and I should like formally to congratulate her on what she has done so far.
It is a great privilege to speak in the first debate to be held by the Backbench Business Committee on what is an historic night. For the first time, it has been left to Back Benchers in Parliament, not the Executive or Opposition Front Benchers, to decide what should be debated in the House on a substantive motion. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) may yet still divide the House, which would be even better, because we would know the number of hon. Members who support the other view to that taken by the Committee.
The motion that we have chosen to debate goes to the heart of readjusting the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. I want to declare that I will be equally rude to Labour Front Benchers and the Labour Government and to the Conservatives. I will blame them both in equal measure, so there is no partisanship in that.
Under the last Labour Administration, power was increasingly removed from Back Benchers and instead handed to an arrogant, dismissive and control-freak Government. That started under the Blair Administration, with his concentration on public relations and presentation, and got worse under the Brown Administration, when the need to control every minute detail was the rule of the day. As a result of that and other recent events, public opinion of Parliament is at an all-time low. Something clearly needs to be changed.
The big question for the House is whether anything has changed with the new Government. Are they any less interested in PR, presentation and spin? At the very best, the jury is still considering its verdict. I say that partly because I will be highly critical of the Government’s failure to put Parliament first in certain respects—in particular, leaking information to the press and other media in advance of announcing it in Parliament—but on the plus side, we have two extraordinary parliamentarians in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, who believe in putting Parliament first and have demonstrated that not only by their statements, but by their actions. It is also quite clear that the Prime Minister believes in making the Executive more accountable to Parliament and increasing the role of Back Benchers. Clearly, the decision to set up the Backbench Business Committee was a prime indication of the Government’s support for Parliament.
There are other areas in which the Government have put Parliament first. The Prime Minister made the remarkably self-confident decision to give up the right to choose the date of the next general election, which removes a massive advantage for the Government. Equally, his decision to allow Government Back Benchers—I am delighted that the Chief Whip is on the Front Bench to hear this—to table amendments when scrutinising the details of a Bill in Committee and then to vote in the way in which they think fit, rather than according to the party line, will empower Back Benchers enormously. That will no doubt occasionally lead to the Government losing a vote, but that should be regarded as a victory for Parliament, not a defeat for the Government.
The Government have also supported reform of the Select Committee system, meaning that the Chairs are elected by the whole House rather than appointed by the Whips. Equally, the Government’s desire not to programme Bills is a significant advance. Back Benchers will now be able to question the detail of Bills, whereas whole sections of Bills were not discussed during the last Parliament because of programme orders. However, there has been some backsliding on that commitment.
The motion sets out that the most important Government policy announcements should be made to Parliament first, not leaked to the media in advance while Back Benchers are left completely in the dark, because otherwise how are we supposed to ask the most searching questions and properly represent our constituents? It is embarrassing and wholly unacceptable if the local radio station rings up to ask, “What do you think about the statement?” when I did not even know that there would be such a statement and it then tells me what is in the statement so that I can comment. Of course, that has happened under not only this Government, but the previous Government. It makes a mockery of the legislative process when the Press Gallery is packed for relatively unimportant and therefore unleaked announcements, but entirely empty for the most important statements.
There was an exception to that under the previous Government because the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) had a tendency not to leak statements. I remember one occasion on which his statement was not leaked in advance, and the House and the Press Gallery were packed. Actually, the statement was on a Government U-turn, but that showed what could happen if statements were not leaked.
We have heard about the history of Chancellors being fired for leaks and people teeing up on the golf course suddenly to find that they were fired, but I will not go over that. We have also heard many references to your statements, Mr Speaker, on the fact that Parliament must hear statements on important policy first. I remember that the previous Speaker was sometimes so red in the face with rage that Ministers had leaked in advance that I thought that his blood pressure would go through the roof. However, he did not have the success that you have had, Mr Speaker, at getting Ministers to the Dispatch Box to apologise. It was to the great credit of the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary that they did so, but that shows part of the problem, as several hon. Members have said, because however grovelling the apology is, it is not enough to stop the leaking—it continues.
I have spoken to several Ministers and ex-Ministers. They did not want to go on record this evening, but they explained the thought process behind leaking information. It is partly to ensure that the press comments on the particularly juicy bits that Ministers want to get into the media, but it is also because of the news cycle. Ministers want to get information out for the weekend papers and radio programmes, so they leak it then. On the day of the announcement, they ensure that the statement is again leaked. Then, they appear in the television studios and give interviews on it. It was very hard for previous Labour Ministers to deny that they had leaked a statement when I had seen them on the television discussing it several hours earlier. Finally, they get the benefit of the statement and the comment afterwards, and, until we find a solution—a threat, if the House likes—in order to stop them doing that, it will not end.
I have been very taken by some ideas tonight. The idea from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) of stringing them from the roof was quite novel, but I think that we are against capital punishment. The idea from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who is sitting by the Bar of the House, had some attraction as well. I do not know whether the Mayor of London has entered into this debate, but he had Parliament square cleaned last night so that none of the tents and protesters is now there. That large open space is now available, and it was suggested to me that, if we put a large stocks there and the Speaker said that a Minister had to stay in them for several days, that would—I fear, at an instance—stop the leaking. However, I then remembered that it would be against European Union law—although that is another reason why we should go ahead with the idea.
John Hemming
It is against the European convention on human rights, which is to do with the Council of Europe, not the European Council.
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I did not want the truth to get in the way of my having a go at the European Union.
Earlier, we commented on how the matter was taken more seriously in the past, and the better way forward is to refer it to the Procedure Committee. However, I should like to suggest some more practical measures on how we might deal with Ministers who continue to leak.
First, if the Procedure Committee or another Committee thinks that a Minister or their Department had leaked, that Minister should have to go and see the relevant Select Committee. If the Department leaks again, perhaps, Mr Speaker, you could demand that the Minister make a statement. If they leak again, perhaps we could have a yellow-card system. I think that I read somewhere in a newspaper about a yellow and red-card system that had much merit. So, with a yellow card the Minister would be on their last warning, and then they might have a red card, meaning that they would have to resign as a Minister forthwith. That, I hope, would really end the leaking. If we had such a system, or if the Procedure Committee had an ultimate sanction, that would stop the leaks. That is what the debate is about. It relates to a serious proposal to put this mother of Parliaments at the heart of democracy, and until we stop such abuse of Parliament we will never really do our job of scrutinising the Executive.