Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q5. As a Back Bencher, the Prime Minister campaigned for group B strep awareness. I am sure that he is aware of Northwick Park hospital’s highly successful programme of universal GBS screening, which proves the very case that he used to make. Will he now encourage Ministers to roll out GBS-specific testing as a routine offer to all pregnant women in all our health services?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue? Two of my constituents, Craig and Alison Richards, came to my surgery and raised it with me, and that is what caused me to become interested in it in the first place.

We have made some big breakthroughs. The national health service is doing much more screening and taking much more action to help those who potentially have the infection, although there are difficulties with national programmes because of the whole issue of anti-microbial resistance and the use of antibiotics. However, I am happy to take this opportunity to look into what has been achieved so far and what more can be done, and then write to the hon. Gentleman.

General Election Television Debates

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), not least because, on this occasion, I agreed with everything she said. When I say that it is important that we do not spend too much time here today debating this issue, I am not criticising the DUP for its choice of debate. Someone from the media said to me, “Is it not a bit much that Parliament is spending time debating this?” I made the point that the media are spending more time debating the matter, in between covering Jeremy Clarkson and other matters. It is a bit rich for them to criticise us for taking a bit of time in Parliament to debate the issue.

As other Members have said, the broadcasters have made a hames of the whole situation. They thought that they had to scramble together an offer, that a proposal on high from them would have to be accepted and that everyone would have to comply. Then they found themselves being played into different corners by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created this situation with the broadcasters.

Last week, headlines said that Downing street had issued its final offer to the broadcasters, which did not look good. We are talking here about the office of the Prime Minister. It would have been one thing for Conservative party headquarters to say it, but it was Downing street, and the letter came from the director of communications, who is on the civil service payroll. The broadcasters should not have allowed themselves to be drawn into such a situation.

This is an unseemly mess. The way in which this debacle is playing out does no one any credit—the parties, the political process and the broadcast journalists. As the hon. Lady said, I do not think that any of us would have huffed or grumbled if a clear decision had been made that the main focus of the debate should be between the parties and the party leaders who are hoping to lead or to form a Government. That would have been clear. Even the broadcasters seem to accept that one of the debates should have that sort of bespoke focus, so no one contends with that principle. Once they started drawing in others, they took inclusion to the point of ridicule. By assembling such a large number, they will create the effect of a game show. The only problem is that the viewers will not have the joy of seeing people eliminated or have the opportunity to vote people off as the exercise progresses. Instead, people will switch off.

It is nonsense to have a studio-centred Tower of Babel presented as some sort of rational political debate. But we must remember that that idea came not just from the broadcasters, but from the Prime Minister. I never saw him as someone who was particularly concerned about the inclusion of all parties, even the small regional parties. We are seeing a whole new side to the Prime Minister. Certainly, he seems to be keener to hear people in debates than he is to hear people in this Chamber. This is a whole new dimension to him.

Why does the Prime Minister insist that we need this wide-level debate? I know that TV screens are getting bigger and wider, but they are not wide enough to take a pan shot of the debate that the broadcasters and the Prime Minister seem to want. It is all about the clear electoral strategy of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister wants to create this idea that the only alternative to a single-party Tory Government is the Leader of the Opposition and an absolute ragbag coalition of a rabble of other parties. He wants that image around the debate precisely because it suits the Conservative election message. Some Members have said that Lord Grade’s intervention was a neutral one, coming as it did from someone who has experience in so many different media outlets. However, his intervention is informed entirely by the fact that he is on side with the Prime Minister’s agenda to use these debates to create a picture that reinforces a basic Tory message in this election campaign. The intervention was entirely biased. The broadcasters have allowed themselves to be played into this situation.

I agree with the salient point in the DUP motion that, rather than having these confused and stylised arguments and rumours between the broadcasters and the politicians, all of whom will be accused of vying for their own interests and advantage, there should be some credible and neutral authority, whether it is set up specifically for the purpose or a hybrid between the Electoral Commission and Ofcom, to make judgments about how the debate should be framed. There will be other opportunities for wide diversity in debates. Many of us—even those who were not in Scotland—were absolutely transfixed and excited by the referendum debates in Scotland. Those debates took many forms, the most powerful of which were not necessarily those that included the party leaders. Some had strong inputs from studio audiences, which included young people. Just as there was a diversity in the type and range of debate in Scotland, so too should there be here. The broadcasters and the Prime Minister should not pretend that the only way of including the small parties is in the big head-to-head debates. That is why our party is not joining the queue to say, “Oh, no, it has to be us, too. If you are going to have Plaid Cymru, you must include us.”

On the point about which other parties to include, perhaps the broadcasters should have come up with some rationale around the number of candidates who were standing. Perhaps they would have been able to draw the line in that way. If parties are putting up candidates right across the UK and backing them up with a campaign effort, perhaps some regard should be given to that, as well as to factors such as opinion polls and seats in Parliament, when considering who is eligible to take part in the debate. We were told at the time of the recent by-elections that the results could change who would have to be in a TV debate. I found it hard to believe that a single by-election result could have that effect, but apparently that was what was understood in media circles. Other rationales could credibly be used to frame a debate sensibly, and a range of wider broadcast opportunities could be used to allow fair access for parties of all scales.

There are parties in Northern Ireland saying that, because of their size and standing in Northern Ireland, they should be included in just the same way as parties standing in Wales and Scotland, but some of them will not even be standing in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, because there will probably be electoral pacts and other factors. It is a bit much for parties that might not even stand in all Northern Ireland constituencies to insist on equal rights in a TV debate with parties that are hoping to form the next Government.

The fact that we have all been sucked into these arguments goes back to the false calls that were initially made by the broadcasters. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was right to criticise the broadcasters for scrambling their original proposals, and for doing so without sounding out parties or journalists, even those available to them within their own organisations. That is what created the problem. We have to find a more sensible way of doing this. Let us be clear that politics also lies behind the debacle we now have, because that debacle suits one party and one party leader, and we should not pretend otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

If this question is not resolved, if the welfare reform legislation remains permanently stalled, obviously the rest of the Stormont House agreement does not happen. That includes the financial package and the devolution of corporation tax, but we are not at that point yet. It is important to work intensively, and in the meantime the UK Government will do everything we can to continue to implement the agreement.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will be at pains not to feed the sense of impasse that surrounds the Stormont House agreement. She knows that there were two elements to the understanding on welfare reform—one was the understanding about the amount of money from the Executive’s budget that could mitigate measures; the other was the degree of leeway within the welfare spending. Has anything changed in the lines from the Department for Work and Pensions that have given rise to the allegations that Sinn Fein is making against the Democratic Unionist party?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to do all we can to keep the situation as calm as possible. Unfortunately, episodes of this kind are characteristic of the implementation process of agreements. It will be helpful for as many facts as possible to be made clear about how the welfare reform programme will operate in Northern Ireland and how the top-ups will operate. It is a generous package, and once the details are clear I hope everyone will be convinced of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

That is a matter for the Executive. They need to make a judgment on whether it will produce a net improvement to the economy in Northern Ireland. They have decided that it will create up to 40,000 extra jobs, so they clearly believe that corporation tax will have a net benefit to the economy of Northern Ireland, but they will have to find the money from the block grant.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

7. What assessment she has made of the effect in Northern Ireland of the introduction of the welfare cap.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Welfare expenditure accounts for one-sixth of all public spending. The introduction of a UK welfare cap was overwhelmingly approved by 520 Members of this House, although I accept not by the hon. Gentleman. The cap ensures that social security expenditure remains fair to claimants and yet affordable to taxpayers in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

[Mark Durkan]

On welfare spending in Northern Ireland, what assurance can the Minister give that the operation of the cap will not entail a cap within a cap in ways that mean future benefit take-up campaigns will, for the first time, be at the expense of other benefits, which has never been the case in the past?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps confusing the welfare cap with the benefit cap. It is important to note that the previous Minister in the Department for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, said that universal credit will lift 10,000 children out of poverty, and that most people in Northern Ireland will benefit from the change in the welfare rules. This has a substantial capacity to improve the lives of those who are reliant on welfare in Northern Ireland.

Recall of MPs Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

First, just because somebody can be recalled does not mean they would automatically be recalled. How to phrase that in the code would be an interesting question. Trying to have repeated recalls of those Members would be a somewhat futile and repetitive exercise, as it was with the case of Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton. He was elected three times as an atheist and refused to take a religious oath. The rules were eventually changed because it was made quite clear that his electorate wanted him. I think that, in the case of the Members the hon. Gentleman is referring to, there would have to be some sort of accommodation that there would not be recall elections for that process.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

That may be addressed by the proposals from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who I suspect is about to say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

What would be the hon. Gentleman’s guarantee that nobody’s constituents in Northern Ireland would be prone to engage in a futile or repetitive exercise?

[Dr Huppert]

I would certainly give no guarantee of that kind. It is important to say that the proposals we are making at the moment do not deal with this issue. I am suggesting that the code of conduct should be updated. I am very happy to have a discussion on the details of that, but it is not germane in detail to this amendment—they are separate processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I think the right hon. Gentleman’s point is answered by amendment 8, which has a fuller definition of misconduct. I hope he will have a chance to take a look at that precise point.

Amendment 24 adds another recall trigger: if a Member has been convicted of an offence under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—providing false or misleading information for allowances claims—whether or not it has led to a prison sentence. The amendment was proposed in Committee by the Opposition and, given the particular sensitivities of the issue, we fully support the proposal. It is a good idea. Similarly, amendment 15 provides another trigger: if any Member is convicted of misconduct in public office, whether or not they are imprisoned—something that has never happened to a Member before, but which does happen on a semi-regular basis, sadly, to police officers in particular. It seems inconceivable that an MP convicted of such an offence could be immune from recall, so I hope the House will support that amendment too.

Amendment 14 tackles the time frame for suspensions from the House to count and ensures that only suspensions after the Committee on Standards has produced a report are involved, thus excluding those from the Speaker alone. Again, this was an idea proposed by the Opposition in Committee and it is sensible. The other amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and I have supported deal with a range of technical details—not least the need to add words such as “third”, “fourth” and “fifth” to legislation that frequently enumerates conditions—as well as more substantial matters, such as historical offences, which I will leave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife to explain.

Lastly, there are the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the amendment to his new clause 4, from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I have particular sympathy for the amendment to the new clause, which follows on from the work of Charles Bradlaugh to expand the oath to allow more Members to take it honestly. I am therefore supportive of the ideas of the amended new clause 4. However, I am concerned by the proposal in new clause 5, even though I recognise much of the wording has been taken from my new clauses. It is reasonable to ask a court to consider misconduct offences, but it is much harder to ask it to judge abstract conceptions such as leadership. Do we have any idea how a court could judge whether we in this House had displayed adequate leadership?

I look forward to hearing comments from across the House on the amendments, but I intend to test the will of the House on all amendments, in particular new clauses 2 and 6, as well as the consequential amendments, and, if they are not accepted, I shall support those proposed by the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), rather than passing the buck to the other, unelected House.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has already touched on new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in my name, and amendment (a) to new clause 4, which has not been selected, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).

I should clarify that the purpose of new clause 4 is to answer a question that I and other hon. Members posed when we discussed the Bill in Committee and on Second Reading. There is no job description for MPs, so if we are creating the principle of recall—a principle I fully endorse: I believe recall should be possible at the initiative of constituents and the electorate—it is important to have a yardstick. If we are affirming that MPs have and owe that degree of accountability to their constituents, there should be a clear basis on which constituents can rightfully wrest the exercise of that right. We had all sorts of circular arguments about whether having an open petition system could lead to all sorts of specious and spurious grounds that were motivated by partisan or other interests. I believe it was important to create a basis on which MPs could subscribe to the possibility of recall by acknowledging from day one when they take their seats here that they are subject to that degree of accountability and owe service to their constituents. That is why I support the concept of MPs taking a new pledge.

It is rather strange that we are pursuing a Bill that is creating the idea that a strong rule of accountability is to be translated into a recall, yet whenever MPs come here to assume their seats, all they do is issue words in the form of an oath or an affirmation about allegiance to the Crown, which many of them do not actually believe. I am not sure that that does anything for the credibility or reputation of politics when the first thing that politicians do in taking their seats is to recite words that they might not believe. Those who believe in those words should absolutely be able to recite them, but it is important that, regardless of whether Members believe in the affirmation or the oath, we should utter a pledge in respect of our parliamentary standards.

Given that hon. Members proposed amendments in Committee that made reference to the MPs’ code of conduct and given the importance of expenses and other relevant issues that could motivate a recall, we need to recognise the significance of the seven standards of public life, which appeared in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, for this Bill. Hence the pledge I propose in new clause 4 has MPs, on taking their seats, affirming that they will abide by the MPs’ code of conduct and honour the seven standards of public life as they are now. Those standards could, of course, be revised and extended in future. The new clause would leave the phrasing of the pledge open.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate, but I am very interested in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are five absentee Sinn Fein Members who are obviously not going to turn up and take any pledge in this House or assume their seat any time soon, if ever. What would be the sanction for such Sinn Fein MPs who refused to sign any pledge?

[Mark Durkan]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but if she looks at the new clause, she will see that an MP subscribing to the pledge may do so

“(a) in writing; or (b) in person at the same time as taking the Oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866.”

So anybody elected to this House on the basis of serving their constituents in the way that Sinn Fein Members pledge they will serve their constituents could not take their seats or sign on to take their seats. Sinn Fein Members could fulfil the requirement by signing the pledge “in writing”. That is entirely feasible, so my new clause would not create any barrier or impediment for Sinn Fein Members—or, indeed, for any other Member elected on the basis that they will not take up their seats in this House, but will use their seats in whichever way they won their mandate for.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. I understood that there were the alternatives of saying the words of the pledge when Members take up their seats here or of making the pledge in writing. My question, however, was what the sanction is for MPs, including Sinn Fein Members, who do not take the pledge either in writing or orally.

[Mark Durkan]

I have not gone as far as that; it could mean a further sanction that if people do not take the pledge, they will be deemed not to have taken up their seats. That could be one way of doing it. We could say that expenses and other things would be paid only in circumstances where the MP has signed the pledge.

The standards required by the pledge would include due observance of all rules and principles involving such matters as expenses which relate to the code of conduct or to the “standards of public life”. All the requirements are parliamentary standards. It is possible that a Member’s status in respect of allowances and facilities would kick in only when the pledge was signed, but that is a detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree that it would be better for the decision to be made by the electorate—by the court—but is not the problem with the pledge being determined by the court that the pledge is fundamentally political rather than legal?

[Mark Durkan]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it can be legal up to a point; there could be some matters on which a clear-cut judgment could be made. I have chosen to offer the route through the court simply because it seemed to me that there was a will or a mood in Committee saying, “Well, if we’re going to allow any element of public petition to recall, then going to an election court could be the way that could be done.” I have simply taken that point and offered this new clause to try to test Members on whether they will follow through on the logic of the argument they made in Committee.

I do not commend the model in new clause 5 above all others. I still prefer the open rolling petition around a clear issue, but, again, I think that the open rolling petition should be on the basis of a pledge. I think the pledge as the basis for those petitions would create a much clearer standard for the public. It would also create a clearer standard for MPs, who would know, if they had committed to the pledge, whether they had abided by the code of conduct and could show whether they had upheld the standards of public life. That should not be too much to ask. MPs should not feel, “Oh, it’s hard to prove that we have upheld the standards of public life or lived up to the code of conduct.” It would send a very dangerous signal if Members felt that a pledge about the MPs code of conduct and the standards of public life would be difficult to uphold or could be abused in some untoward way. Then we would be seen to be trying to find ourselves some highly privileged protection where we decide that we always know best, even about the worst that we have done.

That is the simple point of new clause 5, which I do not intend to press to a Division. Its purpose is to ensure that if we are to improve the Bill, we take into account the absence from the Bill of a clear tool available to the public. Also, we need to make good the serious omission that we have all acknowledged—in circumstances where there is no serious job description for MPs, where is the bottom line? The new clause offers a bottom line.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is worth taking stock of where we are. The Government’s Bill still has no friends in its current form. It still proposes a system of recall that is possible only in the narrowest of circumstances and, in most cases, still only by permission of MPs. It will do nothing to empower voters. For that reason it has been savagely criticised by every pressure group campaigning for improved democracy—everyone from 38 Degrees and Unlock Democracy all the way to the TaxPayers Alliance. It has been trashed by everyone from the Morning Star to The Daily Telegraph, which described it a few weeks ago as an “insult to voters”.

As a consequence, the Prime Minister felt obliged to describe the Bill as “the minimum acceptable”. Labour’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), said that

“the Bill needs to be strengthened considerably from its current state in order for it to have meaning.”

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate the aims of the hon. Member for Foyle. He recognises that it is necessary to refer to a set of rules or principles if a court is to judge whether a breach has occurred. The question that he has raised is whether the House’s code of conduct should be policed both here and in the courts. The fact that he will not press his new clauses to a vote means that it is not necessary to come to a definitive view on that.

[Mark Durkan]

My preference is for the code to be policed by the public, using the mechanism of accountability in a proper, open recall system. That is what I want to see, alongside a newly framed pledge.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman made that point clear in his speech.

The amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are a modified version of those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) in Committee. The intentions of involving the public and taking the responsibility for judging other MPs’ behaviour away from MPs attracted support in Committee. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife expressed disappointment that those intentions had not been reflected in a Government amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in his blog. However, these issues are not easily captured in legislation in a way that avoids the pitfalls that have been mentioned in this debate. It is not for the want of trying, if I may put it in that way. It is for the House to take a view on the proposal if it is pressed to a vote.

G20

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware of any, but I shall have to go away and look carefully at the point my hon. Friend makes. He has been making a series of extremely worthwhile interventions on this subject. For instance, we should ensure that we act consistently with partners at the UN to list and put sanctions on individuals, but the point he makes about ensuring that the people we sanction are also on travel bans is very good, and I will look into it and write to him.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to the Prime Minister’s point about the progress on corporate tax avoidance, he can acknowledge that many poor countries are unable to sign up for automatic exchange of information. Will his Government consider offering bilateral pilots to some of those countries, and will they also do a spill-over analysis, as requested by the OECD and carried out by the Irish and Dutch Governments, of the implications of the tax regime here for those poor countries? Would such an analysis consider the controlled foreign companies rules put in place by this Government, which are taking money away from poor Exchequers?

[The Prime Minister]

Where I would seek common cause with the hon. Gentleman is on the idea that poorer countries are often unable to take part in the tax exchange because they do not have the capacity to process the information and use it to raise funds. That is why initiatives such as tax inspectors without borders and putting resources into these countries to help with their tax regimes are important. I do not agree that what we have done to attract foreign companies is irresponsible. We charge our taxes properly, and it is good that some practices that were—let me put it this way—questionable, such as the so-called double Irish scheme, have been taken away. Low tax rates and the proper application of those tax rates are the prize we should be looking for.

Recall of MPs Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park has not even thought about finance and spending limits for recall, or about the work that would be done to undermine someone in the lead-up to it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend began by saying that he supports recall as set out in the Government’s Bill. However, surely it provides that, on the basis of either of the triggers, a petition of simply 10% of the electorate can take a Member out completely, regardless of what the other 90% say. How can we give any weight to his argument about democracy, given that he supports 10% being able to oust a Member straight away?

[Mr Jones]

I must say that I do have problems with that system, but I also know that under it, at least we are talking about someone who has been found guilty of some wrongdoing. If the amendment were accepted, as in the United States, a small number of well financed people would be able to go after certain individuals.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to a figure of £35,000 for a recall election. The recent recall election in Wisconsin cost $35 million. The idea that several recall election referendums around the country could be done on the cheap is fanciful, to say the least.

Recall of MPs Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Carswell]

That strengthens my point considerably. Until the 1930s, this country had grand juries to determine whether there was a prima facie case. If that had happened, we would not have had the number of cases being brought to court when common sense would have dictated that they should never have been brought to court. If we have grand juries and trust the people, we get better decisions in the courts. If we trust a wider body of people to determine whether or not an MP should remain, we get better judgments and more effective recall proposals. Wherever more people are included in a decision-making process, we generally get better decisions.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point about grand juries, does he accept that the last group of people who should act as a grand jury in relation to recall would be any Committee of this House?

[Douglas Carswell]

I absolutely agree. There are many good and decent Members who would never be given as fair a hearing by a Committee of grandees—people who spend their careers chasing the Whips’ baubles—as they would if they trusted the views of the voters. After all, it is the voters who know us best. If the majority of our constituents decide in a vote that, frankly, they want us recalled, there is no shame in that. We are clearly in the wrong job; we should go and do something else. The voters would be better off if we did; we would be better off and so would democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I struggle to find any part of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) with which I can associate myself, but he has clearly stated his opposition to the Bill and the amendments that we know are to come from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and others. As one of those in the pick-up band of MPs the hon. Member for Richmond Park put together to sit as a cross-party committee to consider an alternative Bill, obviously I support the general thrust of the amendments, but I also take the point, aired as a trailer for subsequent debates, that some of them need to be tested just as much as some of the clauses in the Bill before us do.

Warning against legislation, the hon. Member for South Dorset said that the Bill addressed an issue that should not be dealt with by legislation, but which should be left to honour and responsibility. He indicated that hon. Members know when we have done something wrong and will take the appropriate course of action, and that we do not need any rules. If we took that argument to its extreme, we would not even have the Standards Committee, because we would simply know automatically that we had done wrong and would make amends; there would be no need for anybody else to come to a judgment—we could be entirely reliant on our own sense of honour and conscience—but clearly that is not the case and would not wash with the public.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he not think that what lies behind the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is a belief that trust in the people is the main thing, and that it is not honour, honour, honour from MPs that we need, but trust, trust, trust in the electorate to do the right thing?

[Mark Durkan]

Absolutely. I fully take the point. I believe that the bottom line, as regards the democratic principle, should be to trust the judgment of the electorate and to show belief and trust in their decisions by equipping them to deal with such issues. The idea that we must be protected from other judgments goes back to some of the issues that gave rise to some of the problems with the expenses scandal. I do not believe that this Bill is before us at this stage in this Parliament in the same way as the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was introduced at this stage in the last Parliament; I do not buy the argument that it is comparable panic or anything else.

Long before we had the expenses scandal, there were many warnings that the expenses system was open to a lot of confusion and potential abuse, and that it was ripe to scandalise the public if there was more transparency. Those warnings were not heeded and the Good Ship Lollipop ran aground on what was leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Everyone agrees with the hon. Gentleman about such bad behaviour, but does he agree with us on the following point, if on no other? Under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, the House of Commons should not be allowed to initiate any recall procedure on the basis of the views expressed by a Member, or his votes, or the party he joins, or any political act. The protection is similar to that which we have under the Act of Settlement: we are not held to account outside for what we say here.

[Mark Durkan]

I certainly believe that hon. Members should be clearly protected when expressing their views properly, honourably and honestly as legislators in this House. I firmly believe that legislators should be properly protected in doing their conscientious duty in this House, but when someone is elected for one party and suddenly flips to join another, a constituency should be able to recall that MP. That is why I support amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I am afraid that kind words butter no parsnips. If the hon. Gentleman supports the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), he is essentially allowing a value judgment by a minority of the electorate in each constituency, subject to the recall procedure, to be the determinant factor, so he cannot give that guarantee on, for instance, a moral or conscience issue.

[Mark Durkan]

I am almost being prompted to speak specifically to some of the amendments. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked me about a decision being taken by this House to, in effect, activate the expulsion proceedings—the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was right to say that this is an expulsion Bill, rather than a recall Bill. The principle of recall is meant to be in the hands of the voters. The voters in a constituency elect an MP and the power of recall is meant to lie with them, but the Bill is not about a power of recall that lies with the voters. It is about the power to initiate a recall petition being in the hands of this House or of the court; and, particularly if the process was activated because that Member’s views were not comfortable for others in the House, an election would be called simply on the basis of 10% of the constituents signing a petition. It is wrong that a recall should be triggered, with someone losing their seat and having to go into a by-election, on the basis of 10% of the vote.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend plans to serve on the Bill Committee, but given his knowledge and expertise I think that that would be a great advantage to us. Is not the challenge to try to find something better than the original Government proposals and that addresses the need for the public to feel that they have recall power while protecting people from the political risks of the amendments? Is not the challenge to find something in the middle, perhaps better defining the kinds of offences that would lead to recall—

[Steve McCabe]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept what my hon. Friend says, which is why I have said that just as some of the clauses in the Bill need to be tested, so do some of the amendments to which I have added my name. Their practicality and implications need to be teased out.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

Before I take another intervention, I want to go back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). He said that we as MPs know what our role is, but I do not know where the job description of a Member of Parliament is. I do not know what our terms of office are or what our pledge of office is. I hear people quoting Edmund Burke and see them pointing to “Erskine May” and a variety of other standards, but at no point do we have a pledge of service that clarifies the standards to which we pledge.

My belief is that there should be a pledge of service. I do not believe in the simple affirmation of the oath of allegiance being the only terms on which someone comes to this place to represent their constituents. If we had a different pledge of office—it could include a statement of allegiance for those who wanted it—to affirm and encapsulate the standards of public life and a commitment to proper parliamentary principles, it could provide the basis on which anyone would have to mount a recall challenge. That would give more protection to MPs and would prevent the fear of an “anything goes” situation, with people looking to do “gotcha” petitions against different MPs of different parties in different parts of the country.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Before the hon. Gentleman was interrupted, he spoke momentarily about what happens when a Member of Parliament defects from one party to another. I feel extremely strongly about this issue. It caused a huge amount of concern in my own constituency when the previous Labour MP defected to the Liberal Democrats. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in future the people must always be able to recall a Member of Parliament when he changes sides? People vote for parties, not for individuals.

[Mark Durkan]

If people want to recall on that basis, yes, they should be able to do so, which is why I am supporting the amendments. The hon. Gentleman challenges me on something that I have already stated I believe in.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I refer to him in that way because I like him very much—on most things, but the beauty of being a Member of Parliament is that there is no job description. It is not a job; it is a vocation. We all bring our unique experiences to this place, and I think that anything that undermined that would be to the detriment of the House of Commons.

[Mark Durkan]

I take the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not accept it literally. If we are to talk about having a recall power—whether it be in the terms of this Bill or any other—I believe there needs to be a yardstick. If the House of Commons is to adjudicate itself or to ask a select number of us to adjudicate the rest in respect of standards and privileges, there must be some clear standards.

Many of the misgivings people have expressed about the decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee over recent years have been because there has not been an apparent consistent standard in some of the judgments made and the decisions subsequently transacted. If we as hon. Members have misgivings about how those decisions are made and if we do not always understand them, why should we not expect the public to suspect the same thing? Should we be able to say, “Unlike many other people about whom we legislate, and unlike in many other walks of life where we provide all sorts of detailed schedules, guidelines and regulations, we are to be entirely free agents. We are the purest of democratic angels, moved by whatever spirit or inspiration takes us, and we are to be trusted as such”? We cannot present ourselves in that way.

Let me return to core points about the Bill’s deficiencies. As hon. Members have said, it is essentially an expulsion Bill rather than a recall Bill. Recall is meant to put things in the hands of the voters. Calling this measure the Recall of MPs Bill is a bit like the old joke about the two-hour dry cleaners: “‘Come back next Monday and you’ll get your suit.’ “But it says ‘two-hour dry cleaners’ outside”. ‘No, that’s just the name of the shop.’” Recall of MPs seems to be just the name of the Bill; that capacity is not given to voters. Insofar as a role is given to voters in respect of the recall process, it is simply that if someone triggers either of the two mechanisms, 10% will trigger a by-election. I think that the idea of a by-election being triggered by 10% is wrong, particularly if there has been a lot of speculation and felon setting by the media, which hon. Members fear. Those who fear that sort of scenario should certainly oppose the Bill as it stands.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about the 10%, but will it not be dealt with by one of the safeguards proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)? We would have the 5% step, the 20% step and then a referendum involving a binary choice before a by-election took place. Rather than a minority activity, there would then be a majority activity of choosing to have a recall by-election.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Those of us who were members of the pick-up band that was organised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park wanted to ensure that there could be a trigger other than a parliamentary trigger, or a trigger from the courts, and the idea of putting what could be termed a 5% premise petition in the hands of constituents struck us as reasonable. Having been received, the petition would then have to be tested by a more qualified assessment—the 20% petition—and if that was successful, it would be followed by a referendum which would have to secure a 50% vote before a by-election could take place.

Some Members have expressed the fear that voters will be whipped up into a state of prejudice, and that there will be misrepresentation of people and a disproportionate focus on certain issues. I ask them to consider both the stages and the time scale that are proposed in the amendments that some of us support. It is even possible that the time scale is too long. The amendments would allow more protection and more measured consideration. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) told us earlier that his constituents, who had a very clear view on a very specific issue, were eventually prepared to vote for an MP who held completely the opposite view, because they had reached a more rounded judgment on the nature of the MP’s job, and because they set great store by truth and people being honest about their opinions.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, notwithstanding the safeguards that he has described, in Northern Ireland a group with the organisational ability possessed by Sinn Fein could unseat an MP whom it believed to be vulnerable because that MP was already in a marginal seat. Such a well-organised group could surmount all the barriers that he has outlined, and request a recall on spurious grounds.

[Mark Durkan]

People can organise petitions, and perhaps they can achieve the 5% and perhaps they can then achieve the 20%, but after that there would be the referendum. Even in Northern Ireland, where people have their own views, I have always found them to be fairly tolerant of MPs with different views if they know that those MPs are being honest and diligent.

Many years ago, I had to run the campaign in South Down against Enoch Powell, who represented a minority opinion in the constituency at the time. I remember that even nationalists in that constituency said, “Well, whatever else he is, he is certainly a hard-working and diligent MP.” They did not agree with his views, but they knew his views, and they knew that he did his job. Of course, he also raised his hat to them when he was in the constituency and greeted them, and they seemed to like that as well. Even in the context of Northern Ireland, and speaking as a Member whose seat has been heavily targeted by Sinn Fein, which is investing an awful lot of effort and resources, I do not believe that fear of the outcome described by the hon. Gentleman is sufficient reason to oppose a more meaningful recall provision.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman address a very particular situation in Northern Ireland, namely the anonymity of donations to political parties? Fears have been expressed this afternoon about the ability of the very wealthy to buy a recall. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that? Will he also take the opportunity to correct an earlier intervention, and confirm that voters vote not just for parties but, on occasion, for candidates who present themselves as independents?

[Mark Durkan]

I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point. People do indeed vote for candidates who present themselves as independents, some of whom have a very distinguished record, as in her case. Voters can make sound judgments not only on the basis of party loyalty or traditional party affinity but on the quality of service they want. The hon. Lady is again a good example. She asked me about donations. Thanks to some rearguard efforts in the Chamber in relation to a Bill that was previously before the House, we are now considering a timeline for introducing donor anonymity, albeit with some qualifications. The proposals for recalls could be an even stronger reason to focus on clarifying issues of anonymity, so that situations could not be abused in one direction or the other.

Many Members appear to be raising concerns about how the process could be abused. Yes, there are all sorts of nefarious forces out there, and various interests that are equipped with money, with ill will and with power motives, but at the end of the day all our protection against that has to reside with the electorate. We come from the electorate and, when we leave this place, we go back to being part of the electorate. We should not try to proof ourselves or protect ourselves against the scrutiny and standards of democracy.

I do not believe that recalls will be used in anything like the number of situations that are being envisaged, but the fact of their existence will add to the standing of Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras seemed to suggest that recalls could deter Members from sticking to their own views, but I believe that they could encourage them to do so. If a Member were being asked by the Whips to move from their own clear personal position and to adopt the stated party position, a proper recall mechanism would allow that Member to stand on the integrity of their position as an MP elected by their constituents, with whom their first and last loyalty lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I understand. Let me put it on the record that my hon. Friend is a decent, diligent and caring Member of Parliament who wants to see this House improved and its reputation enhanced. I have never resiled from taking that view and his motives are not ignoble. None the less, we may have mission creep, whereby powerful groups, elites and well-funded individuals and organisations may use those particular mechanisms to oust Members with whom they bitterly disagree. Again, I will call on examples from the past. I ask the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) whether his illustrious predecessor, John Hume, the Member for Londonderry, would have taken the same very brave and principled decisions against people in his own community and the other community in Northern Ireland were he subject to the vagaries and the vicissitudes of a recall process? That is an open question.

[Mark Durkan]

I worked for John Hume as his Westminster assistant for many years, and the truth is that he would have taken the same decisions. Nothing would have dissuaded him from his course. He came under great pressure not from his constituency but from the media and all sorts of establishments, and he stuck that course with the support of the people of Derry come what may.

[Mr Jackson]

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge. Of course John Hume was greatly liked and respected in this House, but that does not mean that vexatious, pernicious and dangerous elements would not have sought to remove him using a recall process. None of us knows the answer.

In conclusion, the Government’s Bill is not perfect, but something that most people could possibly support. I will argue passionately and cogently against the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, although I accept his bona fides in wanting to improve this Bill. We are pushing at an open door here. There is the danger that we will open a Pandora’s box. American congressmen can never really look at the big picture, because as soon as they are elected they are fundraising every two years. They can never really look at the strategic overview for their country, district, county or state. I suspect that something like that might happen with the recall process here in that we will be constantly looking over our shoulders at the mad, bad and dangerous to know, the pernicious and vexatious, which is why I will abstain on Second Reading and argue vigorously against the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

That is a fair point. However, the public are not one thing, are they? The public are made up of a lot of individuals, and therefore one has to allow a certain collection of them to come together before starting to suggest that a recall reflects a wider public opinion. Otherwise we stand the chance of very small numbers of people being able to trigger it.

[Mark Durkan]

The thresholds that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks about would be in the hands of the public. The 5% premise petition, the 20% test petition, and then the referendum are all in the hands of the public.

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, although I will reflect on what I have heard today—I am less sure than I was about supporting the amendments —my opinion is still that we should trust the public. We want the public to trust us, and we need to trust them. However, we need to ensure that we do not allow a tiny minority of the public to use recall in a way that most people, even in the area concerned, regard as untoward and unreasonable, simply because it is there and they feel they can use it. If that small minority are feeling powerless and think that their voice is not being heard, they will pick up whatever instrument is to hand and seek to use it to propagate their case, which they no doubt feel strongly about. That balance is what we are agonising about today.

I try to look at this from the perspective of the public outside. They will wonder why we are putting so many barriers in the way of their deciding to exercise a right of recall and remove people from this place. As Chair of the Education Committee, I am reminded that so many teachers, or certainly the teaching unions, appear to go to such lengths to protect the worst-performing teachers in the system even though, in every case, the teacher who is idle, has low standards or fails their pupils undermines morale in the staff room and all the hard work of most teachers in the school, and those elsewhere who do so much to prioritise teachers. However, standing here in this Chamber, I guess I can recognise the sense of, “If they come for one, they may come for all.” A certain paranoia runs through us.

EU Council, Security and Middle East

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I also listen carefully to the police, the intelligence services and those who work around the clock to keep us safe. Their point of view is not that we need some wide-ranging piece of legislation, but that they have identified some specific problems that need to be dealt with. My responsibility as Prime Minister whose most important task is to do everything possible to keep our people safe is to listen to them, to bring the ideas based on those concerns to this Parliament, to debate them and then to put them in place.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister has stressed the need to counter the extremist narrative. Clearly, he recognises that there are those who are sowing alienation, radicalisation, extremism and subversion, but does he also recognise the danger of helping to fertilise what they are trying to propagate? I am talking about when Governments appear to adopt double standards and inconsistency in relation to clear violations of international law, not least in respect of Gaza, and then in domestic law appear to create a twilight zone around the very basic concept of citizenship.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that we are operating any sort of double standards. I have set out the situation very clearly with respect to Israel and Gaza, and also the problems that we face with ISIL. It will be for hon. Members to decide whether or not they want to support that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look at what my hon. Friend suggests. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has been working extremely hard on this issue. I think it is important that we listen to what the firefighters say but at the same time recognise that the pensions they have access to would require the building of a £500,000 pot for anyone else in our country. We should bear that and the taxpayers’ contribution in mind.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q5. Does the Prime Minister accept that his death at 60 proves that Gerry Conlon lost more than 15 terrible years in prison, and the anguish of his father’s torment, owing to the injustice from layers of this state? As well as his wider campaigning against injustice, there were two particular issues that mattered to Gerry in recent years. One was the need for proper, quality mental health services for those who suffered miscarriages of justice. Secondly—I would like the Prime Minister to address this in particular—notwithstanding the egregious 75-year seal put on the Guildford and other papers, Gerry was recently promised access to the archives at Kew and that people could accompany him. It was his dying wish that that would be honoured through the people he wanted to accompany him. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the dying wish of an innocent man is honoured?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this, and for the way in which he does it. It is hard to think what 15 years in prison, when you are innocent of a crime of which you have been convicted, would do to somebody. It is absolutely right that a previous Prime Minister apologised as fully as he did when this came to pass. I am very happy to look at the specific request about the records at Kew, which has not been put to me before, and perhaps contact the hon. Gentleman about that it.