Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Robert Courts Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak in this important debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who made some excellent points, all of which I agree with.

It is worth restating the fundamental issue that we are dealing with, which is the clash between Parliament, as a sovereign institution and the highest court in the land, and the right of the Government—any Government—to have access to independent, unvarnished, honest legal advice. I suggest that this is a moment when all Members, on both sides of the House, ought to engage in a period of cool, calm reflection. I would further suggest that the Government’s amendment is the correct way to do that.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that traditionally the Law Officers’ advice can only be released with their consent? The information has now been revealed via a statement—that is self-evident—but there is that convention to bear in mind.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, makes an excellent contribution. It is normally the case that the client has the ability to waive legal advice if they wish, but, in the case of Government Law Officers, there clearly is another layer to that, and their position is of enormous importance.

The Government’s amendment is the correct, cool, calm way to look at this matter. We are in uncharted territory. The very fact that we are all discussing constitutional and historical precedents today means that we all ought to avail ourselves of more time in which to study those in detail so that the Privileges Committee can consider the real constitutional and historical ramifications of any decision we take.

To be honest, there are a number of questions to which I do not know the answer. Does a Humble Address trump privilege? It would be helpful if somebody were to look into that and consider it. I do not think there is a straightforward answer because I do not think it has ever been tested—I may be wrong. My point is that a period of cool, calm reflection on such points would be of benefit to everybody in the House. Further, where does the line fall in terms of disclosure? Is there a question of redacting elements of advice? If so, where does the line fall?

Many Members will be clear that the line falls when we are talking about national security—that is relatively straightforward perhaps—but what about the national interest? It is not so easy to define, but it is something that we ought to consider carefully before rushing into what are extremely serious matters, not just of party politics—although of course there is a big element of that in this—but of constitutional and legal theory and practice that could have profound consequences for any Government. The Opposition ought to be aware that at some stage—I hope not for a long time—they might be sitting on these Government Benches and should consider the position they would wish to take.

[Dr Murrison]

Is my hon. Friend interested, as I am, in the position of the European Commission? A number of right hon. and hon. Members would be interested in the advice given to the European Commission by its legal service. I suspect that it would take a very dim view of any request that might prejudice the position taken by the Commission’s negotiators.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the middle of a negotiation, in any discussion that by necessity is high profile and tense, any disclosure of advice that might undermine a negotiator is clearly to be regretted. The Commission will have its legal advice, and we might like to see it, but there is a good reason why we cannot see it and why the Commission should not be able to see ours.

The Government are approaching this matter in a better way than the Opposition’s motion because, as hon. Members have mentioned, they have used an archaic procedure. It was not designed to deal with this situation. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say the whole House is archaic. The whole House is old and historic and flexible, but this procedure has not been used for many years and is not designed for a matter of such sensitivity. It is designed for the production of documents, not legal advice

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

What does my hon. Friend think the Director of Public Prosecutions, say, might think if he were asked to give private legal advice that would then be made public?

[Robert Courts]

That is an excellent point.

[Keir Starmer]

If and when I was ordered, as Director of Public Prosecutions, to do something by order, I complied.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. Of course, he has considerable experience in those matters, but we are dealing here with a wholly different consideration. He deals with circumstances in which he has been subject to a court order, which brings me precisely to my point. No doubt he will say to me that Parliament is a court—it is the high court of Parliament, the highest court in the land—and I accept the force of that point, but the court before which he has been used to appearing, and the court before which I have been used to appearing at the Bar, has a procedure for dealing with such matters that we do not have here.

A number of Members have already referred to the Freedom of Information Act, which contains exemptions for certain purposes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also be aware of public interest immunity applications, which are made when cases are being prosecuted, and a judge can look confidentially at documents and there can be redactions and so forth. None of that applies here, because this procedure is not designed for the purpose for which it is being employed by the Opposition. There simply is no mechanism for this procedure to deal with issues of the gravity of those with which we are dealing now. To its great credit, the Government’s proposal offers a way of looking at that.

[Chris Bryant]

When I sued Rupert Murdoch for hacking my phone, the court required him, under the Norwich Pharmacal procedures, to provide all the documents. His team legally had to do so, because if they did not, they would be in contempt. That is an exact parallel of what is happening here.

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Gentleman is right—he makes a good point— but he is referring to something wholly different. He is referring to disclosure, not the waiving of privilege. Any Member—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but they are wholly different concepts. I did not wish to sound patronising to the hon. Gentleman, but, as any lawyer—including those on the Front Benches—will realise, legal privilege is protected. That is totally different from the disclosure of relevant documents, when someone is expected by a court to disclose documents that can assist the other side. For example, the prosecution may be expected to disclose documents that undermine its case or could be reasonably expected to assist the other side’s. There are procedures laid down in law, through practice and regulation, which deal with those circumstances. They do not apply here, because they do not exist, and they do not apply with regard to legal privilege. That is the crucial difference. There is no mechanism to weigh, under the Humble Address procedure, all the subtle points that we have been discussing today.

I will end my brief remarks by making the point that the Attorney General has come down to the House and spent two and a half hours answering questions—

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

And he is here today.

[Robert Courts]

And he is here today. He answered those questions with absolute honesty and candour, strikingly so, and he made a number of points on which Members will be reflecting. I apologise for summarising those points, but essentially, with regard to the backstop—he will correct me if I am wrong—there is a risk that it may be indefinite. When I asked him about it, he kindly agreed that that was a sound analysis. What he said can be summarised as “That is as far as the legal advice can go.” The disclosure of legal advice will not provide answers; it will only take the House’s consideration so far. After that, it is a political judgment. The political judgment that we must make over the next week is one for us: it is one for us on a political basis. It will not involve an answer being given on the basis of legal advice, whatever standpoint is taken on Brexit or on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal.

Given that the legal advice will not provide an answer, Members ought not to continue to pursue its disclosure as if it will be a panacea that will provide something that we do not already know. We already have those points. We already understand the impact on what has been negotiated, because we can read it for ourselves in the withdrawal agreement. We understand what the Attorney General thinks, because he has told us. That is as far as legal advice can take us, because over the next week we will not be debating whether what the Government propose to do is legal; we will be debating whether or not it is something that we think the Government should do, as a matter of politics and policy, and that is wholly different.

As the Government have suggested, the Committee of Privileges is the right body to consider this matter. I ask the whole House to support the Government and not the Opposition.

Business of the House

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

At my party conference, I was delighted to meet some students who are taking part in the Send My Friend to School campaign, so we are certainly very aware of it, and we support the excellent volunteering that goes on there. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has raised this issue; and of course, the Government do a huge amount on behalf of the United Kingdom to support all young people in getting the opportunity of an education wherever they are around the world.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

SpecialEffect, a wonderful West Oxfordshire charity that seeks to improve the lives of those living with severe disabilities through cutting-edge technology and video games, recently held its largest games industry funding event of the calendar year, called One Special Day. Thanks to the support of the worldwide gaming industry, it has raised more than £300,000. This money will go a long way towards supporting SpecialEffect’s phenomenal work and help it to transform the lives of young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to everyone at SpecialEffect and may we have a debate on how new technologies can be harnessed to improve the lives of those living with a disability?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate SpecialEffect—what a fantastic achievement. I also congratulate my hon. Friend, who I know has been a long-term supporter of this great charity. He is right to point out that small local charities make a huge contribution to communities across the country, and the Government are committed to supporting their independence and sustainability. I wish SpecialEffect the very best success in the future.

Business of the House

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Last year I took part in a group of female Commonwealth MPs who shared their experience of violence and threats, particularly against female MPs. He is right to raise the importance of freedom and free speech, and of being able to go about our work free from the threat of torture and punishment. I am not aware of his specific examples, but if he wants to write to me I can take them up with the Foreign Office on his behalf.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Will the Government make a statement on what can be done to strengthen planning law to allow local authorities more redress when conditions or legal agreements entered into by contractors, such as routing agreements, are routinely breached?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is doing everything it can to ensure that developers abide by planning laws and, in particular, that we speed up the planning system so that we can get more homes built for those who desperately need them. He raises an important specific point and I encourage him to raise it directly with Ministers at the next MCHLG questions.

Business of the House

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think we can all give examples of constituents who have been treated very badly after making genuine errors, and I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s problem. Transport questions will take place on 5 July, and he may wish to raise his specific point then to see what more can be done by Ministers to ensure that companies are fair to those who make genuine mistakes.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Maternity services at the Horton hospital and Chipping Norton are of paramount importance to my constituents in west Oxfordshire. May we have a Government statement on future services, so that my constituents can be assured of their bright future?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the news of the Prime Minister’s commitment to increase funds for the NHS by £20.5 billion a year in real terms by 2023-24. I know that he cares deeply about services at the Horton and in the wider Oxfordshire area, as indeed do I and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has recently reviewed the concerns raised by Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and has asked the NHS locally to work with stakeholders—including us as local MPs—to address them.

Business of the House

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady says. That does not sound right to me. She is obviously raising a particular case. I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary made a statement to the House about the problems with Northern Rail, and he has proposed a special compensation scheme. It seems to me that the hon. Lady should raise this issue directly with Transport Ministers. If she would like to write to me, I can take it up with them on her behalf.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I recently organised the first meeting between the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group and West Oxfordshire District Council to plan for our area’s future healthcare needs. Does this not highlight the need for proper, joined-up planning between councils and health bosses in the complicated area of health and social care, and may we please have a full debate to discuss this very complicated issue?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this. It is an incredibly tricky area and it certainly impacts on my constituency, not far away from his. While district councils do not have responsibility for health or social care, the Government absolutely agree that it is vital that health and social care work together at every level to plan and join up services effectively. He will know that upper-tier and unitary local authorities and CCGs are required to sit on their area’s health and wellbeing board to develop a local joint health and wellbeing strategy to address health and social care needs in each and every area.

Business of the House

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to see what more can be done to sort out this ridiculous incident.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

After this harsh winter, the menace of potholes is becoming much more than a minor nuisance in West Oxfordshire, and not just on the A40, which in any event requires major upgrades, but across the whole of my rural area. Oxfordshire County Council is fixing tens of thousands of potholes a year, but has the time not come for a full debate across the whole House to discuss the way forward?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency and I congratulate him on his work both on congestion and potholes in his area. I am sure he will be as delighted as I am that he and his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), have managed to achieve nearly £500,000 in extra pothole action funding for 2018-19 in Oxfordshire. Nevertheless, he is right to raise this issue and I suggest he perhaps seeks a Backbench business debate, because potholes are a menace everywhere.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Robert Courts Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I understand that the hon. Lady would like the money resolution to be brought forward. She often stands at the Dispatch Box and calls for debates. I should point out that the Government have listened and aimed to bring forward debates on subjects where the Opposition have prayed against statutory instruments. We have also brought forward important debates on subjects such as anti-Semitism and the importance of housing for the next generation. The Government have listened carefully and brought forward proposals from right hon. and hon. Members across the House.

The same is true of private Members’ Bills. We have brought forward money resolutions for three Bills so far. Some very important Bills are making progress, and we will continue to look at providing money resolutions for all those Bills that require them in the usual way and on a case-by-case basis. It is simply not true that this is unprecedented. It is for the Government to decide when to bring forward money resolutions. As my hon. Friend the Constitution Minister has made clear, it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed with this Bill.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House as delighted as I am about the progress of important private Members’ Bills such as those dealing with assaults on emergency workers? Does not this show how committed the Government are to bringing forward and supporting such Bills where they have the support of the whole House?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Strong progress is being made on a number of Bills, including Bills being brought forward by Opposition Members, such as the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which has completed all its Commons stages and is now in the other place.

Nomination of Members to Committees

Robert Courts Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Let us be quite clear about one or two things. First, contrary to what has been said, it is quite clear that the Conservative party did not lose the election. With 56 more seats than the Labour party, the Conservative party quite clearly won the election. Secondly, while the Conservative party does not command an overall majority on its own, the Government quite clearly command the confidence of the House with a majority. That being the case, the people of this country expect the Government to be able to govern and to carry out its legislative programme. They also expect constructive and sensible Opposition from the Labour party, but that is not what they are seeing tonight. It is a party that has decided above all—

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Robert Courts Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I think that there are two points to be made in response to that intervention. First, it is up to the wit and wisdom of Members to use all the tools at their disposal, and I absolutely agree that the Opposition will play every trick in the book, and why would they not? Secondly, I have found myself in a multiplicity of debates since the election, so I wonder how Opposition Members can feel so aggrieved. I have been in debates about new towns, WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—Grenfell Tower, travel infrastructure, school funding and so much more since my return to this House. I am sorry that Opposition Members have not found the variety of opportunities that my colleagues and I have found.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about attendance by some Labour Members. Perhaps she saw the coverage of last Tuesday’s Westminster Hall debate on managing the public finances, which was attended by a great many Conservative Members and almost no Labour Members.

[Mims Davies]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Far from weakening our democracy, the Conservatives in this Government have strengthened it by giving our constituents more voices and by turning up at the debates that have been held.