Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can assure you that Mrs Hoyle will be the one who will come.

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Can the Leader of the House arrange an emergency debate on the re-routing of HS2 in South Yorkshire? At the HS2 briefing for Members last night, the chairman of HS2 said that the reason it is not in favour of the Sheffield Meadowhall station is the lack of backing by Sheffield City Council and the Sheffield chamber of commerce, blatantly ignoring the wishes of the other three councils in South Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on those matters?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been wide consultation on the routes for HS2, as I discovered during phase 1, which has now received Royal Assent, so there have been and will continue to be many opportunities for consultation. I urge him to take every opportunity to feed in to the process as early as he can.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As well as voting for the referendum, this House also voted for the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 before the end of March 2017. Because of the Supreme Court judgment, it is necessary for a Bill to go through all its legislative stages in both Houses for the wish of the House, in respect of the timetable, to be met. The five days that we have allotted will give ample opportunity for that narrow issue to be adequately debated.

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

May we have a statement next week on High Speed 2 in south Yorkshire? HS2 has had a consultation on a station at Sheffield Meadowhall, which has plenty of support in south Yorkshire but there is no consensus. Consequently, it is currently consulting on the M18 eastern re-route through south Yorkshire. We learnt this week that it is now looking at eight sites along that re-route for a parkway station, but none of them is out for public consultation. Can we ensure that we have a good return for public money? It is wasting money hand over fist.

[Mr Lidington]

I will report to the Minister with direct responsibility for HS2 the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Like you, Mr Speaker, I have some constituency experience of wrestling with HS2. It is important that his constituents get clear answers and are able to make strong representations.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Learning of this historic pact, my heart skips. Although the Government have pledged that there will be a series of debates on different aspects of the forthcoming EU negotiation, I fear we shall never be able to grant enough of them to satisfy my hon. Friend.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the re-routing of HS2 in south Yorkshire? The new route will decimate communities throughout the region and provide none of the advantages first associated with the Meadowhall station, which was going to be a catalyst for growth in the south Yorkshire economy.

Privileges

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman on that point. The House is free to make whatever decision it wishes, but the fact that he has to cite a case dating back to 1947—I respect the argument that he is bringing forward—suggests that to summon someone to the Bar of the House is not a step that we should rush into today without some pretty careful consideration.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the last time this House admonished two people—they were Members of this House—they were not called to the Bar of the House, but admonished by a motion on the Floor of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The report represents the fulfilment by the Committee of Privileges of the task that it was asked to undertake by the House on 22 May 2012. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) for chairing a number of the hearings in my absence in recent months.

There is not much time for this debate, so I will concentrate on the process rather than the details of the evidence. It is important to be clear about the role of the Committee. It did not set out to find evidence of phone hacking or to make a judgment about the inquiry conducted by the former Culture, Media and Sport Committee or its findings. Our report is not about phone hacking or the alleged cover-up of such activities. It is this country’s legal process that has taken that into account in recent years.

As set out clearly in our Standing Order, the Committee of Privileges is concerned with specific matters relating to privileges. In this case, that meant investigating whether named witnesses and a company gave misleading evidence to the CMS Committee, as set out in chapter 8 of that Committee’s report.

We started our work by determining the process by which we intended to reach our conclusions. We believed that the process should be fair and should offer sufficient opportunities to the inquiry subjects to put their side of the story and to comment on our draft conclusions.

Although we do not accept that article 6 of the European convention on human rights applies to our inquiry, we set out nevertheless to shape a process that would meet its stipulations. We consulted the inquiry subjects in advance and published the process as a resolution so that all could see what would happen at each stage. That was before the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege started its own work in this area, but we were pleased to see that the Joint Committee subsequently described our process as “fair” and used our resolution as the pattern for its own draft standing orders on dealing with contempt.

Our resolution was published in 2012 and it is included as an appendix in our report, but there are two points from it that I would like to stress. The first point is the standard of proof. We adopted the standard used to assess more serious cases involving MPs—that the allegations had to be significantly more likely than not to be true. The second is the provision that we would suspend the inquiry if there were any danger that it might prejudice a criminal proceeding.

It was that provision which led to the inquiry being suspended at least twice and which meant work to complete the inquiry was delayed until December 2015, when the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not bring corporate charges against News International. That cleared the way for us to look at all the allegations made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

To reach our conclusions, my Committee examined the evidence before the CMS Committee up to 2012 and documentary evidence that had emerged since which was relevant to the allegations. We took into account publicly available material such as that given to the Leveson inquiry, and requested further evidence from the inquiry subjects, the CPS, the police and others. Most of those we approached co-operated with us and we are grateful for that. The exception to that was where lawyers for the inquiry subjects seemed determined to raise procedural issues, rather than engage with matters of substance. We have published all the correspondence relating to the inquiry so that anyone with the time or interest can see for themselves how co-operative different parties have been.

At the end of that careful consideration and analysis, we concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support findings that Colin Myler and Tom Crone—the latter on two counts—had misled the CMS Committee and were therefore in contempt of the House. We did not find sufficient evidence to uphold a third allegation against Mr Crone, or any of the allegations made by the CMS Committee against Mr Hinton. Nor did we find sufficient evidence of a breach of parliamentary privilege by News International, and there was some confusion in the CMS Committee report over pinpointing the corporate body that could be accused of misleading the Committee.

I would invite anyone who disagrees with our findings to re-examine the evidence before us and to bear in mind the standard of proof. I repeat that our concern was specific: did these named inquiry subjects give misleading evidence as set out in the allegations of chapter 8 of the CMS Committee report?

We have recommended that Mr Myler and Mr Crone be formally admonished by the House. We believe that that is a significant step. Although individuals may be criticised in motions in the House, as we saw only recently, that is very different from the House directly resolving to admonish witnesses for obstructing the work of a Committee. It shows how seriously the Committee regards these offences that it seeks to involve the House in that way.

I know that some people feel that we have not gone far enough; the amendments that have not been selected today suggest that. Those people are disappointed to be deprived of the theatre of the inquiry subjects being dragged to the Bar of the House, hence the amendments. However, as has rightly been said, that has not happened in modern times—it did not even happen with the two Members of the House in 1992 who were admonished by resolution; they were not brought to the Bar of the House. We should be conscious of how we treat one another, as opposed to how we treat people outside. In fact, 1957 was the last time the process was used against an individual, when it was described in the House as a “medieval pantomime.” That was objected to. The Speaker of the day, Speaker Morrison, accepted that it was wrong to describe the proceedings as a medieval pantomime, but he accepted “medieval drama”.

The former Clerk of the House, Sir Malcolm Jack, in written evidence to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013, considered that

“the possibility of hauling people to the bar of the House and admonishing them would provide a theatre of the absurd”.

I think that he was right. The more recent precedent, set in 1992, is, as I have said, for Members to be reprimanded by resolution only. My Committee considered which form of admonishment was appropriate and decided firmly against summoning Mr Myler and Mr Crone to the Bar. That would risk moving the focus from the facts of the case, which are published with our report in great detail, to the punishment and making the process effectively a show trial, for want of a better expression. It seemed to me and the Committee that that would not be good for the House or for anyone else, even if those powers were available. We should remember that in 1957 the proceedings of the House were not broadcast and there was no such thing as social media. We recognise now that everything we do is much more public. I am sure that Mr Crone and Mr Myler will not regard today’s events as a light matter, and nor should they, given the findings of the Committee and the evidence that is in its report for all to see.

I could say much more on the subject of the House’s powers and how they are enforced, but I will be able to return to that matter if the House agrees to the proposal from the Leader of the House that the Committee of Privileges should examine the

“exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts”.

As my Committee points out in our report, that matter has been left unresolved for too long and it is right that we should go away, look at it and come back with some workable recommendations. I believe that it is better that that be done away from any current privileges report or any current inquiry.

I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure us that, unlike in the past, time will be found for the House to debate and to come to an agreement on whatever recommendations we make in our report. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we have to get the power that this place has into the context of the 21st century, not the centuries before. That is important. If the proposal is agreed today, and agreed by the Privileges Committee, all Members, and I am sure others, will have the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee about the powers we have and how we should exercise them.

The inquiry took a long time and my Committee has done its best to reach a fair verdict following a fair process. I think that we have done that and I ask the House to support the motion before it today.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure that the Secretary of State has noted my hon. Friend’s comments. What I can tell him is that no decision has yet been taken—there is plenty of speculation about it in the media—on how to respond to the Airports Commission’s report. Of course, if such a decision is taken, it will be right and proper to have a statement to this House.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I had the opportunity to meet members of the Heathrow workforce in Committee Room 11 yesterday afternoon. They told us that implementing the Davies commission’s recommendation would benefit not just them but the British economy. I read this morning that the Prime Minister is going to announce today that the decision is going to be delayed for six months. Are the Government more concerned about the outcome of the mayoral election than the benefit to the British economy?

[Chris Grayling]

I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is just going to have to wait for a decision to be taken. Despite what has been said in the media, I say to the House again that no decision has been taken on how to respond to that report. When it is, we will respond to the House appropriately.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. All of us, as constituency MPs, have direct experience of the challenges that families with an autistic child face and of the importance of doing everything we can to give those children the best possible opportunities in life. I pay tribute to those in my own constituency, particularly at Linden Bridge school, who do fantastic work in this area. I am sure that hon. Members from across the House share her interest and her concern that we do the best we can in this area. I know that that view is shared by the Secretary of State for Health, for whom this is an important issue. I will make sure that her concerns are raised with him, and I encourage her to keep bringing this matter before the House through the different channels that are available.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Do the Leader of the House and the Government not think that looking once again just at the House of Lords is like looking at one wheel on the bicycle, while not looking at the other wheel and the Executive who drive it? Should we not have a comprehensive review of how to bring this institution into the 21st century as a legislative body?

[Chris Grayling]

There are many different views about how all our constitutional arrangements should work. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is engaged on such matters at the moment. Its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), is hard at work looking at our constitutional arrangements, and I am sure that the Select Committee will come forward with interesting ideas in due course.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There are different opinions on both sides of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it appropriate for this matter to be decided in a mature way by English and Welsh MPs who would be affected by the change, and not by Members of Parliament whose constituents would be unaffected by the change and are saying that they will vote against the law as it currently applies in Scotland?

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House suggests that only English and Welsh MPs should vote on this matter. Does that not completely contradict the answer he gave earlier? After 32 years in this place, I have never seen such a shambolic decision. There are thousands of our constituents out there who want this thing sorted out once and for all.

[Chris Grayling]

The point is that there are different opinions on this issue on both sides of the House. It was a manifesto commitment to offer a choice to the people of England and Wales on what they want to happen. It is not right for a party that has no connection to these matters to say that it wishes to interfere—that is a change to the policy it has pursued for many years.

Procedure of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Before I give way again let me discuss some of the arguments because I want to leave time for the shadow Leader of the House and others.

The arguments in favour of the status quo are that it is a familiar procedure, that it is a quick procedure, and that the Speaker stands for election as the Speaker in his or her constituency in expectation of continuing in office and is therefore in a different situation from other officeholders. But obviously the arguments the other way are very strong. We conduct the great majority of elections in the House, and all elections out in the country, by secret ballot for reasons well understood and instantly appreciated. That has been a general principle of our democracy since the 19th century. Whenever voters elect someone to a position of power and authority over them, the principle is that they should be able to do so without fear or favour. It is how we elect our party leaders, it is how we elect our Select Committee Chairs—[Interruption.] It is certainly how we elect our party’s leader. It also frees MPs from pressure from the Chair or from their parties.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

This proposal, like the elections for Committee Chairs, goes against one of the major principles of standards in public life: transparency. Should we not bring Parliament into the 21st century and make all elections for everyone open, so that we and the electors can see exactly what we are doing in here? We have a bad enough reputation now; this motion sullies it further.

[Mr Hague]

I think it would be a minority view on both sides of the House that all elections should be by open Division or open voting. The right hon. Gentleman can make a case for that, but it is a minority case. Indeed, the Liaison Committee has said that the election of Chairs by the whole House gives those chosen a greater degree of authority in their role in the House, their relationship with Ministers and their standing in the wider community. The Standards Committee, which he chairs very capably, said:

“We recommend that the Chair of the Committee be elected by all MPs”—

which means in a secret ballot—

“as we believe this would enhance the confidence of the House in the Committee”,

so his Committee has made the case, as he will have to admit, for election by secret ballot.

Committee on Standards (Reports)

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron]

I am delighted to open this debate, which represents the fulfilment of a great deal of unsung and often thankless work by the Standards Committee.

I should like first to talk about the proposals for changes to the composition of the Committee. Those were recommended in the sixth report of this session, which the House is asked to note. The report was put before the Committee by the Standards Sub-Committee, which was set up in response to the reflections of the lay members of the Committee on their first year in office.

The lay members have prepared a further note covering their experiences after two years in office. That will be published shortly, and I have no doubt that the new Committee will find it as useful, if as challenging, as we found the first one.

The Sub-Committee was chaired by Peter Jinman, one of the lay members, and the House, like the rest of the Committee, has much reason to be grateful to him and his colleagues. Although the report was prepared by the Sub-Committee, it was adopted without demur by the main Committee. Contrary to any fears that may have been expressed before the lay members were appointed, this agreement between the lay and elected Members of the Committee has been typical.

The lay members were appointed to the Committee in 2012 when the Standards Committee was separated from the former Standards and Privileges Committee. Their introduction was intended to strengthen the independent element in the standards system. The first independent element, of course, was the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. As the report makes clear, her role remains crucial and undiminished and her independence in her field is unaffected.

In the event, the lay members have changed the Committee in ways that were not all expected. By bringing their outside experience to bear, they have encouraged the Committee to rethink its working methods. They have given it the self-confidence to suggest moving away from being a largely reactive body that comes into play when it receives a memorandum from the commissioner and towards being one that seeks to play a clearer and more positive role in standards setting.

The position of the lay members is not always understood. The fact that they cannot vote or propose reports or amendments is sometimes used to suggest that they are in some way ciphers or stooges. I want to say to the House, and to the people listening outside, that that is absolutely not the case. Not only do the lay members play a full part in debate, but any one of them has, by Standing Order of the House, the right to append an opinion to any report of the Committee.

Moreover, given that it is essential that one lay member be present for the Committee to be quorate, they have an effective veto over the transaction of business. Fortunately, neither opinion nor withdrawal has ever been necessary; the lay members have gained their points by discussion and persuasion, and the Committee’s work has been greatly strengthened as a result.

We have recommended that the number and proportion of lay members of the Committee be increased. That brings the House’s system closer into line with the regulatory systems for professions such as the law and medicine, and it is way ahead of lay input in the Parliaments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, none of whose equivalent Committees has any lay members whatsoever.

At present the Committee consists of 13 members— 10 MPs and three lay members. We propose that the overall size of the Committee be increased from 13 to 14, of whom seven should be lay members. That will also give us an opportunity to have more diversity in the Committee. Instead of the current quorum of five elected members and one lay member, we propose that the new Committee’s quorum should be three elected and three lay members. If agreed to, our proposal will also permit the term of office of lay members to run over a Parliament, making succession planning smoother. All those changes should strengthen the position of the lay members even further as well as allowing the Committee to experiment with different ways of working.

We also propose that the next Chair of the Committee should be elected, as the Chairs of most other Committees of the House now are. In principle, I think that is an excellent idea. On the other hand, I must warn any prospective candidates that, if elected, they will be in for an interesting and sometimes rocky road. None the less, it is a job worth doing, and one that is crucial to maintaining and improving the reputation of the House.

The report looked in some detail at the current system. It made a few suggestions for changes in practice by the commissioner and the Committee but found that the system was generally proportionate, the process fair and the sanctions appropriate. Some Members might think that our report spends too long setting out the existing system. We did that because we found that it was often misunderstood, and not only outside the House, but within it, and we wanted to help remedy that. Understanding of the system is not helped by the media coverage of parliamentary standards issues, some of which verges on the biased. I will give one example. The House has put restrictions on the remit of the commissioner. The Committee accepts that those should be reviewed from time to time, but none the less for the time being they are in place and the commissioner must abide by them.

The sixth report pointed out that many complaints to the Commissioner for Standards fall outside her remit. This applies particularly to what might be called level of service complaints, when a constituent feels that a Member did not help them as the constituent asked. We suggested that time, resources and frustration might be saved, not least for complainants, if constituents could be helped to understand better what MPs can and cannot do, what they may reasonably be expected to do, and when some other person or institution should be approached first.

Following publication of the report, one newspaper carried the headline, “MPs no longer want to help constituents with their bin collections and street repairs”. We do live in an elected democracy. Any such suggestion is ridiculous. Insult was added to injury in this case because the Committee had held a press briefing at the time of the report’s publication and Committee staff had already explained the recommendation to the journalist concerned. The misrepresentation was deeply disappointing, if not predicted from some quarters.

Misunderstanding of the system is not restricted to the media. There is widespread ignorance even in the House on occasion about what our system is. The Committee believes that the House authorities should do more to promote understanding of parliamentary standards—for instance, by making the website clearer. The Committee accepts that it, too, could do more to help the media and the public to understand its reports, in particular the process by which they are arrived at. We have made some suggestions for our successor Committee and to the commissioner to consider how this might be done, though any Committee will be careful to avoid getting drawn into argument about specific cases.

We are glad that plans have been made to make the induction of new MPs more effective.

The House is committed to reviewing the code of conduct and guide to the rules once in every Parliament. I now come to the proposed changes referred to in the first motion before us. These have been a long time coming, as they were first proposed in the Committee’s third report in the 2012-13 Session. Indeed, it was mainly the delay in bringing them to the House that led the Committee to recommend that its reports should be debated within two months of publication. Still, better late than never, and I am pleased that any difficulties seem to have been resolved and that the Government are now able to bring changes forward. This means that the revised code and guide will be in force at the beginning of the new Parliament. This will be crucial in assisting people who get over the wire, both those who are Members of the House now and new Members coming into the House. It will be enormously helpful if the proposed changes are agreed to.

The proposed change to the code of conduct reverts to the position as it was before 2013, making it clear that the code does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely personal and private lives. We understand that this change meets the approval of Members.

The proposed changes to the rules make the rules on registration simpler, clearer and more consistent, tighten the rules on lobbying and make it clear that previous resolutions of the House are to be read in a way that is compatible with the code and guide currently in force. In this way they allow the House to respond to the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption, otherwise known as GRECO, a Council of Europe body of which the UK is a member. Like the lay members, the GRECO report holds a mirror up to the House, and we should consider carefully the recommendations it contains. The recommendations and the Committee’s response to them are printed in our third report, to assist the House.

As the sixth report makes clear, the maintenance of high parliamentary standards is a matter for each and every one of us, whatever parliamentary position we may hold. There are many different sorts of leadership in the House. Standards are not a matter for the Committee on Standards alone: it is important that political leaders understand the system, and do not inadvertently undermine it by appearing ignorant of the rules. These are the House’s own rules, agreed in debates like this, and we should all respect them.

Business of the House

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will know that many, many months have passed since we agreed the principle of standardised packaging of tobacco. I understand that we are waiting for the detail of the regulation to come through. Can he tell us how that will happen, whether it will be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and when it will happen?

[Mr Hague]

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that yet; otherwise I would, of course, have announced it in the business statement. Details will become clear as the days go by. I have made it clear before that regulations could be laid but that they could not be made until after a date in early March—I believe in the first week of March. We have not got to the point when those regulations can be made, and we will announce how we are to do it in due course.