| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“shall be deemed to be proceedings in Parliament as expressed in the Bill of Rights 1689, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act.”
All I would add is that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards operates under that principle at the moment. This is independent regulation, but operating on the
same basis—that the investigations should be privileged. The provision also guards against double jeopardy. I urge the House to support it.
Sir Alan Beith: This is precisely the sort of amendment that needs measured and leisurely consideration. Although I am sympathetic to it, I am not convinced that it is the right way to achieve the objective of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I shall be interested to hear the Government’s response.
Having entered that proviso, let me also say what an unusual delight it is to see an amendment of mine carried before its even being reached.
Sir Stuart Bell: I wish to speak to amendment 1, which I tabled.
It was never expected that the Bill would be retrospective, but it is important for us to put the question of allowances behind us, and it is important for the Bill to assist in that procedure. I can tell the House that the review of allowances that has been authorised over the last four years has been put in train, that the House of Commons Commission, with the approval of all party leaders and Members on both sides of the House, has begun its work, and that the terms of reference have been agreed. Sir Thomas Legg is the distinguished chairman of the review body; his independence is absolute and sacrosanct, and must be seen to be so by the public. The review will cover four years of receipts, and it will be minute and thorough.
My amendment is intended to remove any prospect, should it exist, of a further review. I believe that a sword of Damocles would have been held over each and every Member if retrospection had operated, whether rightly or wrongly. It has been suggested to me that there might be a gap between the authority’s taking over and Sir Thomas Legg’s review, and that a mishap in the interstices—perhaps relating to misbehaviour—might not be brought to the attention of the new body, which might cause a vacuum in the proceedings. As we know, however, the Committee on Standards and Privileges is still there, will continue to be there, and can exercise its own authority and powers should anything fall within those interstices.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It seems to me that amendment 6 is affected by the decision to remove clause 10, which means that, as we understand it, the Bill of Rights 1689 will apply. The amendment would ensure that any investigations under clause 7 were deemed to be proceedings under that Bill. It occurs to me that the commissioner may not be able to conduct his investigations, because he constitutes a body outside Parliament.
The Bill states that proceedings in Parliament, which will now include the investigations under clause 7, cannot be
“impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
It seems to me that the commissioner, and indeed IPSA, will constitute a “place out of Parliament”, because, unlike the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, they will be independent and outside the jurisdiction of Parliament. That is the whole point of making them independent, and that may reinforce the case for retaining a central role for the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which, being a parliamentary body, can quite properly investigate proceedings that take place in the House.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend’s train of thought, but, having been a member of the Committee that introduced the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I have yet to hear from anyone that there is an urgent need for the arrangement to be changed. I know that we are not specifically discussing the case in question, but I have yet to understand that any other than the Leader of the House’s opinion believes that the punishment should have been harsher. Other than that, I am aware of no one in the media who is saying, “If only we had some other system that is tougher than this one”, and none of my constituents have written to me to say that. This system is generally accepted to be reasonable, fair and, at the right moments, harsh on those it needs to be harsh on.
6.15 pm
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for that intervention because that is exactly my experience. We have all been on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism about the expenses regime, and it is essential that we reform that quickly, but, like my right hon. Friend, I have not received any criticism that the House Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is not doing, and has not done, its job well. The Committee and its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), have to my knowledge never been criticised for having pulled their punches at all when Members have had to be disciplined. Despite that, we are transferring a large part of these duties to the new Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations.
We will have two commissioners; we have discovered that during the course of our debates on the Bill. My point is that the new Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations will be outside Parliament. Therefore, according to the Bill of Rights, he will be a “place out of Parliament.” If I am wrong on that, I will be happy to be corrected.
Sir Alan Beith: I understand the position to be that the commissioner will be unable to adduce proceedings in Parliament in pursuit of a matter relating to Members’ interests, and will therefore find himself concentrating on the expenses issue, which is the primary reason for creating this body in the first place. It would be illogical to leave Members’ interests matters with the standards committee. They can, of course, be looked at without reference to proceedings in Parliament; indeed, it is often possible to do so.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a helpful intervention. I have no objection to the new commissioner looking into matters of expenses, which is the subject of most of the controversy, if he really is essential, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he will also be looking into other matters. To do that, he will have to look into our debates and reports of what has happened in our Committees, and that will be prevented by the Bill of Rights.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree with the points my right hon. Friend is making, but is he aware that the next business is the sunset clause, and it is crucial that we get on to that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
Well, I slightly resent that intervention actually, as I think this is an important matter. Although I do not intend to speak at length, I
do think we need answers to some of these questions. We have not had many answers during this debate. I am fully aware that there are other matters to be decided, however, and I am sure they are important, too.
This Bill is a complete muddle. We are stumbling forward without any idea of the consequences of what we are doing. I may be wrong, but I would like some light to be shone on this complicated matter before we proceed.
Mr. Dismore: Amendments 4 and 3, which offer the only opportunity to raise the lack of a right to appeal, deal with issues relating to procedure and the setting of those procedures. I do not want to repeat at length what I said on Second Reading, because that would be going back over old ground, but I think it is important to recognise that there is no right of appeal for any Member in this process. If we are going to start looking at having outside regulation—whether through the commissioner setting his own process or, as the Bill stands, through IPSA—to whom can a Member appeal? If amendment 4 passes, a report will not have to be made.
The Government argue that the Bill is compatible with the right to a fair hearing because IPSA is independent, but my Committee report tagged to the debate does not accept that in respect of IPSA’s functions, the rules devised, the procedural safeguards designed and the various investigation and enforcement powers. All that adds up to saying that IPSA is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Lord Bingham, in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege said:
“I am always rather uneasy if any decision by anybody, however wise and authoritative, is final and immune from any challenge, and therefore the reason why I think it would be desirable to have a route of challenge available is simply to eliminate that situation.
That was just one point that he made; it was not the full quote. He went on to say that the way to deal with this matter would be to have a right of appeal from the House to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I had tabled an amendment to that effect, but that was, unfortunately, not reached because of the guillotine—that is another example of the problems that we have been experiencing.
If an outside body is to carry out our regulation and we are, thus, trying to externalise all this, we must have the same protections as any other professional body in those circumstances. Until recently, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council both had rights of appeal to the Privy Council for matters resulting from their determinations. That position has changed slightly, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has developed expertise in determining such matters. It has learned to use this power sparingly and appropriately, and it would therefore be appropriate to consider that body as an option. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council already has a role in determining whether a Member of the House is subject to a statutory disqualification under section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, so no great new principle is involved. What I am proposing would simply mean that if a Member is subject to disciplinary proceedings, they, like anybody else in the outside world, would
be entitled to due process. Part of that involves the right of appeal, which is simply not provided for in these provisions.
Mr. Grieve: I, too, wish to see the House move on as quickly as possible to the sunset clause, but the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) merit consideration. In the vote that we have just had, whereby clause 10 was removed from the Bill, the Committee made it transparently clear that whatever regime is set up to deal with our finances and allowances externally, it cannot and must not infringe article IX of the Bill of Rights. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply to even this short debate, will assure us that the Government recognise what the Committee was saying in that decision and will ensure that whatever is put together in the House of Lords to rebuild this Bill will be done in a way that achieves that objective.
I say that because although we have removed the clause that said that the Bill of Rights does not apply, we have not secured anything that expressly says that it does apply. I hope that the Secretary of State will, in the spirit of the vote that took place—the Committee was trying hard to reach a consensus—indicate that he fully appreciates what that message was. It is clear that it is possible to have a regulatory regime in which our allowances and salaries are dealt with externally to this House without intruding on the Bill of Rights. That can happen only if the Secretary of State is prepared to re-examine clauses 7, 8 and 9—some other areas may also need to be examined in a bit of detail—in order to ensure that what is put together conforms with the protection that the Bill of Rights affords to our independence, and freedom of speech and action.
Without that, we will end up having further arguments when this Bill returns from the House of Lords. Although the Bill is not in a fit state to go on to any statute book anywhere as it goes now to the House of Lords, I am pleased that the way in which it is going there gives the other place a perfectly clear indication of what it must do to put the Bill right. I hope that the Government will co-operate in this process. Mindful of that, I hope that when the Secretary of State responds to the points that have been made, particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, who has performed such a sterling role in the passage of this Bill, he will provide the assurance that he recognises that the Bill of Rights will not be infringed upon by this legislation.
Mr. Straw: I shall go through the various points that have been raised. I can first tell my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) that we will accept amendment 1, which removes subsections (5) and (6) from clause 13. There was never the least intention to make the Bill retrospective, but as anxiety about that has been expressed, I am happy to clarify the point.
Sir Stuart Bell: Notwithstanding the short time available for this Bill, my right hon. Friend has been most understanding and given it his best shot. I am sure that the House will join me in appreciating his acceptance of various amendments.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words.
Amendment 6 was tabled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—Essex is a fine county. Ironically, for those of us involved in the cross-party conversations, it was originally suggested that there were two ways to handle the issue of privilege as far as IPSA and the commissioner were concerned. I leave aside the issue of evidence of paid advocacy—how to deal with obtaining evidence when a charge under clause 9(3) is being pursued—for the moment. As far as the other two limbs of what was clause 10 are concerned—it is, of course, now dead—the original proposal was that we brought IPSA and the commissioner into the ring of privilege, and it was drafted to that effect. At that stage, there was no market for that because, as we were trying to create a body independent of Parliament, it might look as though we were trying to have our cake and eat it by providing that statutory and arm’s length body with privileges and even immunities that did not apply to any other body. That was dropped in favour of carving privilege out of the operation of IPSA and the commissioner.
I endorse the words of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We do not rule out the proposal in amendment 6—indeed, it was in play at one point. I see the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) smiling in agreement. However, it will require some thought. Although we are anxious to get the Bill through—that is certainly the explicit commitment of the Government and the Liberal Democrats and, by implication, of the Conservatives—I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will join me and others to consider it. Contrary to the myth that this is some kind of supine Parliament, Parliaments since 1997 have been more assertive of opinion in the House against the Government of the day than any other. There is good research evidence to that effect from the professor of politics at Nottingham, whose name escapes me at the moment.
Mr. Grieve: The Justice Secretary heard what I said earlier, and I hope that he will be able to give some comfort to the House, especially as we are about to lose control of this Bill. If it were to go through the Lords without amendment, it could go on to the statute book and it would be incoherent. That could happen. Can he confirm that the will of the House to get rid of clause 10 is fully understood by the Government and will be respected?
6.30 pm
Mr. Straw: I shall come to that. There was serious anxiety in the House. I feel frustrated, although I know that it is one of those things. We are trying to get the Bill through, and there is heavy pressure—this applies to Governments of all descriptions, but it just happens to apply to this Government at the moment—and there was no time to debate clause 10. I fancy that my powers of advocacy would have been sufficient— [ Interruption. ] I know that the Government are to blame for the fact that there was not time, but I am making the point that I hope that my powers of advocacy would have been sufficient to have persuaded three people to vote the other way, had I had the opportunity.
Of course, we will consider amendment 6, too. However, on a point on which I was engaging the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed— [ Interruption. ] This is in answer to the hon. and learned Member for
Beaconsfield. Of course, I respect the view of the House, but I also want there to be an overall scheme that is workable and effective— [ Interruption. ] May I have the hon. and learned Gentleman’s attention, since he asked the question? Clause 10 said:
“No enactment or rule of law...is to prevent”—
that is, article IX will not prevent—
“the IPSA from carrying out any of its functions”
“the Commissioner from carrying out any of the Commissioner’s functions”.
The House is very clear, and one way through it is to do the reverse, which is what the hon. Member for North Essex proposed and it is something that we, too, considered.
The third limb of the clause concerned
“any evidence...being admissible in proceedings against a member of the House of Commons for an offence under section 9.”
Let me simply put a point before the House for consideration—we all have to think about this. The exact issue has arisen in the past in respect of bribery. When the matter was considered by a Joint Committee on the issue of bribery some time ago, it was agreed that Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords should not be exempt from prosecution for bribery and that, in certain cases, the only evidence might be what they had done in the House of Commons.
In order to get a bribery Bill on to the statute book, the issue is being further examined by the Joint Committee on the draft Bribery Bill. We have put forward a draft Bill, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. Clause 15 proposes that article IX of the Bill of Rights is not to prevent
“any evidence of...words spoken by a member of either House...or...any conduct of such a member in such proceedings...being admissible in proceedings against the member for a bribery offence or in related proceedings.”
I would have accepted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), which would, essentially, have put the third limb of clause 10 into that form.
Of course, I understand what the House has said, but there is also a serious issue. There is an argument between those on the two Front Benches about whether clause 9(3), which is the paid advocacy clause, is needed. As I understand it, there is no argument but that paid advocacy should be the subject of criminal proceedings.
Mr. Grieve: I want to get on, but I think that I made the position quite clear. I see paid advocacy as bribery and the draft Bribery Bill provides the perfect vehicle for dealing with that and for ensuring that Members of Parliament are not exempt by virtue of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me that what was clearly stated in the way in which the Committee voted to get rid of clause 10 was that, for the purposes of the regulation of the House and any criminal offences that might be thought to be relevant, the Bill of Rights would continue to apply. I think that if the Secretary of State tries to do something else in the other place, he will find, in the light of that vote, that he will face serious difficulty.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |