Detainee Inquiry

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

It is also possible that there would have been no Belhaj investigation if someone in Colonel Gaddafi’s entourage had not carelessly left their papers lying about when fleeing Tripoli. That is no doubt one of the matters that will be inquired into in due course. I have the greatest sympathy with the human rights organisations; they are on the side of the angels, and they expound principles with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, I continue to believe—as I stated when we were arguing about closed sessions in civil proceedings last year—that they are being wholly unrealistic if they think that the intelligence services can be effective while the details of all their operations are being discussed in open court. We are not here to feed the media, or to help people who are gathering evidence for whatever civil litigation they might wish to bring. We are here to ensure that we have truly effective, working intelligence agencies that protect the citizens of this country. We make them accountable, but we also need to exercise common sense and have regard to their safety as we go about inquiring into their activities.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the report, and I believe that the whole House will welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). We would expect nothing less from such a distinguished parliamentarian who has served the House and this country extremely well. May I reiterate the point that he made about the importance and desirability of oral evidence being taken? Much has been written about that, but perhaps we will now have the opportunity to set out the facts.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I sought to explain earlier, the Steel Bill would do three things. It would stop future crooks from sitting in the House of Lords; it would stop people who had never turned up to the House of Lords from sitting, but pretty well all of them turn up at one point or another; and it would offer voluntary retirement, which so far has not been taken up by more than two or three peers. If we look at the detail rather than declare that the Bill is a great alternative to an elected House of Lords, we see that it does not really stand up to scrutiny. It would not make much of a difference. Call me old-fashioned, but my view is that if we are going to reform the House of Lords, we should do it properly once and for all and ensure that it has democracy at its heart.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Deputy Prime Minister satisfied that the Prime Minister did everything he could to support the Bill? If so, why does he believe the Conservative party rebellion was so large?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I am satisfied that the Prime Minister did all he could. This happens in politics, but thankfully our political parties are not North Korean political parties that jump when their leaders say jump. I should know that as well as anybody after this weekend’s press coverage.

This debate divides opinion and provokes strong reactions in people. In this instance, as the Prime Minister has said, he sought to persuade Members of his own party, but the commitment that he and I made to having the first elections take place in 2015 proved not to be possible. What we have done is perfectly sensible, and it happens from time to time in politics. We have drawn a line under that issue and the boundaries issue, and we will move on with the many important matters, particularly economic ones, that we must now tackle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate has been asked to carry out an inspection of the Serious Fraud Office. It is intended that the inspection should assist the new director, and it has been timed accordingly. In my superintendent’s role, I have regular meetings with the director and other senior officials.

[The Attorney-General]

It is not accurate to say that I have indicated that the report will not be published. The position is that such reports are not normally published, but due to the unusual and understandable level of interest, I think it important that as much as possible should be put into the public domain. I will make it my business to ensure that that happens. I should explain that the reason it may not be possible to publish all of it is that there have to be safeguards to prevent prejudice to ongoing investigations, but subject to that, I would wish to see the results made available.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Having spoken to my constituents at the weekend, I know that there is no doubt that they would have preferred a judge-led inquiry into the banks. During last Thursday’s debate, the Attorney-General told us that a quick inquiry would clash with ongoing criminal investigations by the Serious Fraud Office. What assurances can he give us that the Select Committee inquiry, which will be wrapped up by Christmas, will not create the very clash that he warned us about last week?

[The Attorney-General]

Provided that the Select Committee conducts its business in the best traditions of the way in which I would expect a Committee of this House to do so, any difficulties that may arise in relation to an ongoing criminal investigation ought to be surmountable, and indeed I made that clear during last week’s debate. The difficulty that I identified with part of the motion that had been tabled on behalf of the shadow Chancellor was that it was quite prescriptive in terms of what it wanted the judicial inquiry to do. I foresaw that that could cause particular extra problems.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Shepherd]

Of course, I joyously do that. Implicit in every line of the measure is the management of the House. That is the only reason why I diverted slightly to recall the London Illustrated News.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making another fine speech, which I am always glad to hear. He spoke about the mandate for constitutional change and the previous mandates that previous changes have enjoyed. Does he agree that it is important to have a mandate not only to introduce a change in the constitution such as that proposed, but to entrench it? Without such a mandate, is there not a danger that future Governments may feel that they have the authority to introduce such constitutional changes to their own benefit, much as the present Government are seeking to bring in a constitutional change through the measures in the Bill for their own benefit?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell]

I just said that it would have been sensible had the Labour Government gone to the country in 2007—not only because we would have won, but because it was good and it would have been right to ask for a new mandate for a new Prime Minister. The Labour Government made a mistake and in consequence they hung on too long towards the end. I cannot see that I can break down and make any more confessions in the Chamber. That is an assessment of political reality. That is what Governments who are in difficulty do—they hang on—and that is what the Bill seeks to entrench.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some very good points about Governments hanging on for five years, but is not the crucial point that if all precedent and practice in this country are for four-year Governments, and four-year terms for other directly elected positions, the Government need to advance a strong case for extending the period to five years? They simply have not done that; indeed they refuse to do so. Is that not what we should consider today?

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree absolutely, but that argument relates to amendment 11, which seeks four-year terms, whereas I am arguing for more democratic three-year terms, so I must have a more radical argument than the statesmanlike argument that we have just heard. We should all ask ourselves where the five-year period comes from. Where have the Government plucked it from? What is the inspiration behind the Bill? Perhaps we could have some explanation of why a five-year period has been chosen. It was not in the Conservative party manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I am consistent on that point as in all other aspects of my political philosophy. In fact, the debate on 16 May 2008 was a full debate on this issue, and I urge hon. Members to consider it.

I have spoken to amendment 32 on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Having performed my duty in that respect, I am now free, and I should like to speak to amendment 11 on my own behalf, and not on behalf of that Committee or anyone else. There are two issues to consider when it comes to the length of Parliaments: first, the constitutional principle; and secondly, the prevailing political situation. Let us be honest: that is the crux of the matter.

On the constitutional principle, there is nothing strange, new or innovative about a five-year parliamentary term. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) asked from where the Government have plucked the idea of five-year terms. The fact is that the law permits five-year Parliaments, as it has for the past 99 years. The idea has not been plucked from nowhere—it is quite normal.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the normal practice has been four-year terms? In fact, the average length is slightly less than four years. If we are to extend that period, we should at the very least be given an argument in favour of it, but such an argument has not so far been forthcoming.

[Mrs Laing]

No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The Bill is not about extending Parliament. Four year Parliaments are not normal. Let us be realistic and honest about that, in political terms. We have had four-year Parliaments because they have suited Prime Ministers who believed that they had a better chance of securing a majority in the country after four years than if they went on for another year. The current system gives enormous power to Prime Ministers, and quite rightly so. There must be some power of incumbency, which is what the power to make such decisions is. There is no norm of four-year Parliaments, and averages are irrelevant—they are just arithmetic.