Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Mark Durkan

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman’s point gives rise to the question of location. Whether there is a minimum or a maximum of four locations, can people freely choose, turn up to any of them and register their signature on the petition? Will there be anybody to check there and then whether they are eligible? Many people may be unsure who their MP is or which constituency they are in. When it comes to setting up petition points, somebody should be in a position to verify that people are eligible to sign the petition by virtue of being on the register for that constituency, whether there is a particular geographic catchment for that constituency or an overall register for the constituency. That would need to be managed by way of regulation or other instruments. We cannot take care of all that in the Bill.

I have some sympathy with the points made about clause 9 and the language of the petition. That does not need to be in the Bill. There are also questions about the couching of that language and the need to make it clearer. Whereas on polling day people have to garner a significant amount of support to be successful, those who are mobilising behind a petition have to get only 10% in a constituency over a long period of weeks. It is not a high challenge that they are set. In those circumstances, it is not too much to expect that voters who are being given that opportunity should make sure that they are eligible to sign the petition. I think the test should be higher than 10%, which is why I supported the three-stage proposal from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

Whichever version of recall petition we are discussing and at whatever stage it takes effect on either model, people should know that the process surrounding the petition is managed properly. If they think petitions are managed in a way that falls short of what they would expect at election time, we are inviting a culture of abuse. I hope the Government will consider the arguments, which will be supported both by those who broadly support the scope of the Bill that the Government have provided and by those who would challenge it. All of us want to know that if there is to be a petition process, it will be durable and reliable.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I first welcome the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to his place? I understand that yesterday in the south-west he was seen on television but not heard. This evening we have had the benefit of both seeing him and hearing his wisdom. I shall deal first with a number of the points he made before turning my attention to the rest. He talked about minimum versus maximum and explained that he was looking to change only two letters, which perhaps is a new record, even for his minimalist approach. However, I am slightly surprised that he tabled the amendment: I know him to be a great believer in parliamentary process, yet he is seeking to overturn the advice of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Although we recognise the strength of his argument, we were slightly surprised to see him going against his colleagues.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend seems to labour under the apprehension that the Chair will be put in an undue position of power over selection, and will have power that they do not already enjoy. However, has he not noted the point made by the Public Bill Office on page 10 of the report that

“An alternative would be to allow orderly explanatory statements to be tabled on the day after the deadline for tabling the amendments themselves. It would, of course, be for the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means…to select an amendment”

afterwards? That would overcome the problem that my hon. Friend raises that Members should not be expected to provide an explanatory statement before the deadline.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a genuine parliamentarian. However, as I have said, this is about putting a greater onus on the Chair of a Bill Committee or the Chair in the Chamber. I do not think that we want to add to those burdens. We have some wonderful Chairs who chair proceedings with a light touch. I fear that there would be complaints from the Government, the Opposition, the minority parties and Back Benchers saying, “Why has that one been allowed in, when an explanatory statement was not scheduled in time?” We have seen too often that, because the Government have tended to introduce Bills at the last minute—I am thinking of the gagging Bill in September—it would be difficult for my hon. Friends to table amendments, then produce explanatory statements.

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they intend all their amendments to have explanatory statements whenever practicable—I take their word on that. I had a slight exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said with some justification, to be fair, that when he was a Minister explanatory statements were produced for all his revisions. I suspect that his civil servants had a hand in the drafting of those statements, but that is not a luxury that the Opposition or, indeed, Back Benchers enjoy. If the Government wish to expand the resources available—

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a fair point. I do not think that I am giving away anything when I say that that was one of the discussions that the Procedure Committee had with the Front-Bench team and the House service. Regrettably, however, in these austere times, that is not on the table. If it were, I would wholeheartedly support the amendment, with the caveat that Back Benchers should be given greater resource.

It is something of an insult to parliamentary colleagues to maintain the myth that Members of Parliament are confused or vote the wrong way. I am conscious that Liberal Democrats may see that as a good excuse at the next general election to explain why they voted for a series of measures—“I am very sorry. I didn’t realise what I was voting for”—but I am not aware of a single case where a Liberal Democrat MP will argue that they voted to increase tuition fees or break their other promises because they were confused about what the motion or amendment meant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will correct me. The idea that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is promoting that Members are confused about what they are voting for is utter nonsense.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He must recall that friends of his in the House were perturbed to find that they had voted a particular way on an amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill without realising, they said, that it had implications for religious equality—something for which they would not have voted. If explanatory statements had been required on all amendments to the Succession to the Crown Bill, Members would have known exactly when they were voting to keep sectarianism in the British constitution and when they were not.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will not comment on how many friends I have in the House.

In conclusion—

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Mark Durkan

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

As other hon. Members have said, we do need a lobbying Bill, but we needed more consultation and proper pre-legislative scrutiny precisely to determine how many people would be caught and whether they should be comfortably caught under this Bill.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Under the current proposals, only two of the nearly 1,000 meetings would have been captured. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a completely nonsensical approach?

[Mark Durkan]

What my hon. Friend describes absolutely trivialises the claims that the Government are making for this Bill, especially when we consider what bearing it would have on the amount of lobbying of the Government and what would be registered. If we consider the Bill in terms of transparency, the slight, little bit of translucence that will emerge at the very edge of the current lobbying business is hardly what would pass for transparency in any meaningful sense of the word.

Civilian Deaths (Ballymurphy)

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady has put her finger on an important point. I do not talk about the victims of Ballymurphy or Bloody Sunday as if they were the only people who suffered grievously and need truth and justice, because there are many other victims of other forces or self-styled forces who are also due that. However, one thing that sets the victims of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday apart is that they were denied the promises, albeit hollow promises, made by the state at the time that no stone would be left unturned in the pursuit of justice. The state and its political establishment denied them the sense of solidarity that other victims were given. They were accorded no sympathy or recognition of their innocence. Their innocence was impugned, because the suggestion was that they had somehow conspired to bring death on themselves or others.

That is one of the reasons why the other victims who not only received mortal injuries but found themselves in the twilight zone of state condemnation are due vindication and proper affirmation of their innocence through independent international assessment, and that is also why someone must be held responsible and why responsibility must be taken. That is important, not least in the light of the important and positive statements that the Prime Minister made when the Saville report was published, and in the light of those important findings themselves. The Prime Minister said several times on that day, and it was repeated on the day of the Saville statement and when the report was debated last month, that the Government take responsibility. It is important that the families of the victims of Ballymurphy hear someone take responsibility for those events.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion, as have his colleagues, of those families for many years, and I am sure that he will ensure that they are never forgotten. Does he agree with me that, although the role of the Parachute Regiment, who were quite clearly murderers in this case, should not be overlooked, the state itself had a failing, and is there not arguably a direct link between its inaction over Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday? Does he agree that, had the state done the right thing in Ballymurphy, we might have avoided what happened on Bloody Sunday?