Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Alun Michael

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. Whether the Government plan to impose penalties on Ministers who fail to observe the House's expectations in regard to statements.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government are committed to making key policy announcements in Parliament, a principle that is set out clearly in the Ministerial Code. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the House had an opportunity to debate the issue in December last year. The premise that specific penalties should be imposed by the House over and above those already available was considered and rejected during that debate.

[Alun Michael]

I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on delivering that reply with a straight face, but let us be honest: we all know that announcements should be made in this House first, but the temptation of a quick headline and some media coverage trumps virtue almost every time, especially within the walls of No. 10. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that Ministers need to know that there is a certain penalty for that, such as promotion to the Whips Office or being hung by their toenails from the Elizabeth Tower, in order to ensure that virtue prevails?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He is an experienced and respected parliamentarian, and he will be aware of the range of measures available to put a Minister on the spot over any alleged failure to make the most important policy announcements to this House: urgent questions, Select Committee investigations, Prime Minister’s questions, points of order and raising matters in the Backbench Business Committee. I hope he agrees that that is an impressive list of effective sanctions against errant Ministers.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Alun Michael

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 13. I welcomed the Government’s review of counter-terrorism security powers, which concluded that the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorists should be 14 days. I had anticipated that conclusion, but I had not anticipated that the review would further conclude that there might be exceptional circumstances in which it was necessary to increase the limit on pre-charge detention to 28 days. I cannot foresee the exceptional circumstances in which that might be needed, but I suppose that exceptional circumstances are, by definition, very hard to foresee.

Once the review had concluded that there might be such exceptional circumstances, measures had to be put in place, and I support the Government’s approach to fast-track primary legislation. My concern is that, if we had not done that, we might not have had in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that we would seek an extension to 28 days only in exceptional circumstances.

Clearly, this is not as elegant a solution as simply opting for 14 days. In requiring the additional step, we must ensure that pressure is maintained during the first 14 days to ensure that cases are very actively pursued. I have been told that, in some cases, there has not been quite the necessary degree of energy and commitment during those 14 days. Creating a significant hurdle for exceptional circumstances that requires a parliamentary legislative process should ensure that the necessary safeguards are operated, and it reflects the fact that we have not used 14 days since 2007.

I welcome what the Government are doing. They have identified the need for emergency legislation to be available not only while Parliament is sitting but when it is in recess, and the issue that was correctly identified with regard to Dissolution has also had to be addressed. I am happy to speak in favour of new clause 13 and to welcome it this evening.

[Alun Michael]

The Minister responded reasonably to interventions earlier and I welcome the tone with which he has responded to the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was absolutely right that the Government have dug themselves into a hole, and we are trying to help the Home Secretary and the Minister to climb out of it.

The Minister accepted that the powers in the emergency legislation cannot be triggered on the basis of the threat level, but only by the need for extra time for specific investigations. The debates on emergency legislation would therefore either be so general and free from evidence as to be meaningless in terms of scrutiny, or be about specific cases, in which event they could be prejudiced. The right way is for a clearly exceptional power to be set out in primary legislation, with a high bar and stringent requirements to make abuse virtually impossible. As the Government have set their face against that approach, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and the rest of us have tabled new clause 14, which is a reasonable attempt to find a way around this that would not be damaging to the reputation of the Government, this House or the legislative process.

I urge the Minister, if he can do nothing else, to say that he has heard the debate and to give an undertaking to think further on these points, which are made not to cause difficulties for Ministers, but to try to enable the Government to get us to the right place as far as principle and law are concerned.