If we are serious about the principle of recall, it has to be something that goes back to the constituents. Whatever the issues about decisions that might be taken by bodies within this House in relation to standards or breaches—I know that there are proposals in some of the other new clauses and amendments but I will not speak to them now—I still believe that the public will treat the idea of recall as serious when recall is in their ownership and can be at their initiative. I understand,
24 Nov 2014 : Column 664
however, that hon. Members feel that if we leave it just to the public initiative, it will be abused. They feel that there will be no bottom line, no standards and no protection. I believe that the idea of the pledge provides that sort of protection. It is the clear reference or standard point to which the public can look and hold MPs to account, and it is also the defence line for MPs.
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”.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 665
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.”
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP): Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental flaw in the Recall of MPs Bill is that it does not contain a recall mechanism?
Zac Goldsmith: Exactly right. This is not recall as it is understood anywhere in the world.
The shadow Minister went on to say that the Bill
“is simply not good enough. The public will, rightly, expect more.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 787.]
Even the Deputy Prime Minister, who wrote the Bill, has had to express difficulties with it.
But after all that huffing and puffing, here we are today with more or less exactly the same Bill—a Bill that no one likes. Yes, a few amendments have been proposed, but they are red herrings. They add nothing useful to the Bill. Labour’s main proposal, amendment 14, merely lowers the threshold so that hon. Members who are suspended from the House for 10 days or more automatically qualify for recall. The original proposal was 21 days. The only effect that will have is in the judgments made by a committee of parliamentarians. They will simply rejig the way they sentence MPs accordingly. The 10-day rule would have spelled the end for any number of hon. Members who have been sanctioned for engaging in protest.
Thomas Docherty: May I clarify the amendment? It specifically excludes those Members who have been named by the Speaker for parliamentary protest in the Chamber. It does not capture Members who have engaged in parliamentary protest.
Zac Goldsmith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It changes nothing at all. I am reassured by the point he makes, but all this does is create a different dynamic—a different impetus for the committee of parliamentarians. They will simply pass different judgments accordingly.
The main Lib Dem amendment, new clause 2, introduces a new trigger—misconduct in public office. It sounds great and some people might be reassured by it, but it adds nothing material to the Bill. I have looked into the matter and sought advice. I quote some of the advice that has been issued. The Crown Prosecution Service says that this should apply
“only where … the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate”.
The House of Commons Library says:
“There are few prosecutions, suggesting that action is taken only when misconduct is particularly gross.”
“The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice.”
24 Nov 2014 : Column 666
If we are honest about it, the only reason why this amendment has been tabled is so that the mainstream parties can pretend that they have addressed one of the main concerns with the Bill, which is that it leaves MPs in charge.
4.30 pm
Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman said that a mistake, even an honest one, will not suffice. Does he actually think that MPs should be subject to recall just because they have made an honest mistake?
Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman knows my arguments concerning recall. I am deliberately trying not to rehearse the arguments that were made in Committee because I lost them by a ratio of 2:1, but I fundamentally disagree with his view on how recall should be used. I was elected largely on the basis that I would put up a fight against Heathrow expansion. Had I, immediately after the election, taken a non-executive role within BAA—even an unpaid role of some sort—and flipped my position entirely, that would have amounted to a fraud on my voters. Had I performed such a U-turn, I believe they should have had the right at that point to recall me. The hon. Gentleman disagrees and that is a fundamental philosophical difference, but I will not rehearse the arguments because, as I said, I accept that I lost them a few weeks ago, sadly.
So, we have the same Bill, more or less, with a few synthetic changes if they are passed later today, and we are supposed to believe that the three main parties are all of a sudden happy with it. Perhaps they are, but if so it is only because they were not really, genuinely, authentically unhappy with the old version that we debated. Either way, it is an embarrassing, insulting nonsense. They have tied themselves up in knots to avoid letting voters hold them to account, all the time pretending that they are doing the opposite.
As if to prove how seedy this affair has become, the most extraordinary letters have been sent by MPs to their constituents, explaining why they blocked real recall. I will not rattle them all off, but let me give one example. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) told his constituents that he opposed real recall because
“I could have faced…recall…for voting in favour of an in out referendum”.
“I could have faced a recall campaign for having voted to close corporation tax loopholes.”
Does he honestly, truly believe that his constituents would have wanted to recall him for doing either of those things? Is it possible to have greater contempt for one’s voters than he expresses in that article in his local newspaper? I have seen countless letters explaining that pure recall would undermine the independence of MPs—letters, incidentally, sent by MPs so dependent that they have never once strayed from the party Whip, never once been disobedient to the parties they serve.
And then we have the Deputy Prime Minister, who robustly opposed real recall six times in this Chamber that I am aware of. Six times he was on the record opposing California-style recall—
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake): Did the hon. Gentleman notify my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) that he would mention his name in this debate?
24 Nov 2014 : Column 667
Zac Goldsmith: No, I did not. I was not aware that I was supposed to. Perhaps I will be recalled under the new mechanism that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): The point has been made. Normally, it is good practice to let people know if you are going to name them. I am sure that it was not done intentionally.
Zac Goldsmith: I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is not a convention that I was aware of, and it certainly was not intentional.
The Deputy Prime Minister has formally opposed, on the record, real recall six times in this House. Then, as the pressure for proper recall began to rise earlier this year, he clearly felt it. He told his LBC listeners:
“Zac and I are completely at one. I actually have no objection at all to the kind of radical California style recall that he likes.”
The real problem, he added, is that
“It has absolutely no hope…of being passed into law because of profound objections from conservative colleagues.”
Of course, when it came to a vote—a free vote for the coalition, if not for the Labour party—his party trooped as one through the No Lobby, against real recall.
In the last debate on recall, Members were asked to trust voters to hold them to account, and a majority declined, sadly. I genuinely believe that the establishment’s refusal to share power means that ultimately, it will lose that power. However, the result was clear and for that reason I have not tabled any new amendments. It was clear that the House as it is today is not ready for proper recall, and I would be wasting the House’s time if I rehearsed all those arguments and re-tabled those amendments.
However, there is some good news. In an impassioned speech, a Scottish National party MP—the name of his constituency is so complicated that it is a disincentive to quote him, so I will not. [Hon. Members: “Western Isles.”] Is that right? So that is what we call it in English. I was not aware of that. I was going to attempt the native version, and I am afraid that I would have got it wrong. Nevertheless, in an impassioned speech, the hon. Gentleman said that even if reform were rejected by the House, it was inevitable, and he was right. Prospective parliamentary candidates up and down the country from all the parties—Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and the rest—are positioning themselves against the incumbents on the basis of where they stand on recall.
Richard Fuller: Does my hon. Friend agree that recent news has highlighted the public’s distaste for a political elite keeping themselves to themselves and ruling over the people? Is not that another reason for the public being frustrated that the Bill does not include the real recall provisions that he proposed on Second Reading?
Zac Goldsmith: I could not agree more strongly, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention.
Change is inevitable, and we are moving in the right direction. I also believe that, with the new composition of the House after the election, we will be in a better position to bring in a genuine form of recall. I certainly hope that that will happen. In the meantime, however, let us not insult voters with this placebo that is being
24 Nov 2014 : Column 668
offered today. People who are interested in politics already know that this Bill is a sham and a stitch-up. The rest—those who are perhaps not paying attention today—will discover that fact for themselves at the very first scandal. Let us walk away from this disgraceful piece of legislation and wait until the House grows some collective proverbials and does the right thing.
Zac Goldsmith: I was about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Thomas Docherty: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s acceptance of the vote last time, will he clarify whether it is his intention to oppose amendment 24, which deals with MPs who fiddle their expenses, if there is a Division on it?
Zac Goldsmith: I am happy to answer that question. I do not want to sound self-important, but it is my intention not to vote one way or the other on the amendments or the Bill, because I do not want to give the Bill any credibility at all. It is a sham, a shambles, a farce, an insult and a disgrace and I do not want to have anything to do with it. When we come back to the House with a proper proposal, I will engage again, but for now I would advise all those Members who believe in democracy, in reform and in genuine recall to walk away and wait for another time.
Thomas Docherty: I want to set out Labour’s position on the principle of recall and the reasoning behind the amendments that have been tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and others. I will then set out Labour’s views on the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Finally, I will deal with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
I want to begin by again placing on record Labour’s support for the principle of recall when an elected representative’s conduct falls well below the standards that Parliament and their constituents expect. That is why our 2010 manifesto promised to introduce recall legislation and why we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We will support it again on Third Reading.
However, we continue to believe that the Bill could be strengthened. We have tabled a number of amendments to that end, and I am grateful that they have attracted cross-party support. We discussed the principles behind each of them in Committee, and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned them briefly, so I will not detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments or going into unnecessary detail.
Amendment 14 seeks significantly to lower the threshold for the period of suspension relating to the point at which a Member of Parliament may be subject to a recall petition. As it stands, the Bill states that the second recall condition is that a Member must be suspended from the House for 21 sitting days to reach the threshold. We believe that that sets the bar too high. For example, neither of the MPs who were suspended during the cash-for-questions scandal would have been subject to potential recall using that threshold. By reducing it to 10 days, as we propose, Members such as those and many others who have been suspended over the years would be captured by the revised mechanism.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 669
However, we recognise the genuine concern that Ministers flagged up during the Bill’s previous stages, which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), that a Member who had twice been named by the Speaker for unparliamentary activity or protest could fall foul of the lower threshold. That is why we have inserted the provision that the suspension must be the result of a report into an MP’s behaviour by the Standards Committee, although it is for the House as a whole to determine the length of a suspension.
Our amendment 24 deals with Members who have been convicted of fiddling their Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded parliamentary allowances. Some may be curious as to why we are proposing that the recall process should apply even where a non-custodial sentence is handed out. We believe that a flagrant misuse of public funds by MPs is simply unacceptable. Those of us who were not MPs in the previous Parliament fully understand the public’s anger at that whole sorry saga. As the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, the public’s confidence in our political system has been severely strained by the events of the past few years. We hope that this amendment signals to the public that Parliament is listening and changing.
Dr Huppert: The other point the hon. Gentleman could make is that his party’s manifesto specified that recall would be only for MPs found responsible for financial misconduct. So his proposal is entirely in keeping with his manifesto, as our proposal is with our manifesto commitment. Indeed, the surprise is that none of the major parties had something analogous to that which seems to be pushed by so many.
Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our amendment. I would not say it was only about that condition, but we did specifically state that it was grounds for recall, which is why we supported the Bill on Second Reading and will do so on Third Reading.
Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman just said that the changes in his amendment arise because of past failings in MPs’ behaviour and how such failings have strained the public’s credulity. That may be one explanation, but another may be that the public realise that they want control over a much greater proportion of what Members of Parliament do, and that direct democracy has a much greater role to play and arouses much greater passion in the community. Does he think that is a push for the Bill and his amendments to have gone further?
Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to restart a debate we had on Second Reading or in Committee. The Opposition are clear that we are representatives, not delegates; and that the basis for recall must be wrongdoing and misconduct, not because an individual constituent or a well-funded vested interest group disagrees with how a Member has voted. That is an important difference.
Richard Fuller: If that is the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he think that those in America’s House of Representatives, some of whom are subject to recall, are delegates, not representatives?
24 Nov 2014 : Column 670
Thomas Docherty: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I just clarify the point for the hon. Gentleman? Members of the two Houses of Congress, and the President and vice-president of the United States, are not subject to the recall provisions. Those apply only at state level, because the courts have ruled that there is no constitutional provision in the United States at federal level for the recall petition. So, ironically, the one group of US citizens who are exempt are those in Congress; many who observe their proceedings might wonder from time to time whether they should be recalled.
Amendment 16, our third substantive amendment, deals with the quirk that under the Bill as it stands only offences committed after the date of Royal Assent are covered. We have previously highlighted our belief that this should apply to all new convictions, regardless of when the offence was committed. I do not intend to rehash previous examples, but where an offence comes to light only after a Member of Parliament is elected, surely it would be wrong to deny his or her constituents justice. Of course this should not apply where a conviction occurred before a Member was elected, because it is a reasonable assumption that the electorate have already taken that into account when choosing to vote for them, and there is precedent within the UK for that. However, how can a constituent know about an offence where no conviction has occurred? We hope that the Government will accept those arguments.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sympathetic to most of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but I do have a query about this one. Is it not, as a general principle, unfair to apply a punishment to people that they did not know might be a punishment at the point at which they did the wrongdoing?
Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his argument, but of course that person was not a Member of Parliament when they committed the offence, so would not expect to be denied something going forward. Let me take his argument and reverse it. This place abolished capital punishment some 40-odd years ago. If somebody were today convicted of a crime that previously had capital punishment as a tariff, we would not retrospectively apply a punishment that no longer exists.
4.45 pm
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in allowing interventions, but his argument also applies the other way around. If somebody were found guilty of an offence committed 40 years ago, for which the punishment was a maximum fine of 2 shillings and 6 pence, they could still only be fined that amount. It is a very important legal principle that the penalty may not be increased, but it may be reduced.
Thomas Docherty:
I suspect the hon. Gentleman needs no reminding that this Bill is about providing rights to our constituents. I am talking about a right to recall where serious wrongdoing has occurred. Yet again, he tempts me to remind the House that, after being elected, my local Scottish National party MSP was found to have committed a string of domestic violence offences over a 30-year period. He was charged and convicted only after he became a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and there was no mechanism for recall, despite the fact that he had broken a frying pan over his step-daughter’s
24 Nov 2014 : Column 671
head. I believe the House will agree that it is absolutely right that, where offences have come to light and there is a new conviction, we provide justice to those constituents.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): I support what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said. It is an ancient principle of English justice not to impose retrospective penalties or an ex post facto view on things. Is the Labour amendment designed to impose on individuals a penalty that would not have applied previously? I think it is, in which case it is against the principle of natural justice.
Thomas Docherty: May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that he may be confusing sentence with offence? There is no attempt to make a retrospective offence. What we are saying is that one of the tariffs to which an hon. Member would be subject is recall. It is about balancing the rights to justice with the rights of our constituents. If he is saying that he will oppose us on this measure, I do not think he will find many colleagues with him in the Lobby.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) might find me as a supporter. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government’s reasoning in this regard may be to draw a line under the past? In fact, they said as much earlier on. We all know that the public were appalled by the expenses scandals of the past. That is why IPSA was set up. It was designed to draw a line under the past and make sure that everything was independently audited. I hope we will continue to do that as far as future independent salary reviews are concerned, but the principle applies here as well. We need to draw a line under the past, and keep the future in mind.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Let me help to draw a line. Members must make short interventions, not speeches. If we can make future interventions shorter, it will help.
Thomas Docherty: We absolutely agree on the point about IPSA expenses. To provide justice to our constituents, it is a relatively uncontentious tweak to the Bill to say that if a Member of Parliament were convicted of serious wrongdoing they should not be able to evade natural justice just because their offence was carried out before Royal Assent. Let me now make a little more progress.
We see these three amendments as sensible steps towards improving the Bill and significantly strengthening the rights of constituents to hold their Members of Parliament to account. I am grateful to Members from the other parties and to those on the Government Benches who have signed our amendments or who have indicated that they will support them tonight. I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm that he, too, supports our proposals and that he will encourage all his colleagues to endorse them so that they can be carried without a Division.
I now turn to the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I want to deal first with new clause 2 and the amendments relating to it. As I said in
24 Nov 2014 : Column 672
Committee, we support the principles behind the idea. We agree with the hon. Gentlemen on the idea of an independent mechanism when it can be demonstrated that wrongdoing has occurred. Like the hon. Gentlemen, we entered into talks with Ministers in good faith to make it work. However, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, despite lots of warm words from Ministers the Government have walked away without fully engaging. At no point did Ministers proffer alternative wording, which will of course leave many wondering whether parliamentary counsel were ever engaged properly. The Government Chief Whip who, yet again, is nowhere to be seen, seems to have decided that this is all too much effort.
That is no way for the Government to behave, not only after giving clear assurances in Committee but on a Bill that was, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, a key plank of the coalition agreement. The result of the Government’s behaviour is that we are left with a new clause that is, by the admission of the hon. Member for Cambridge, not in a fit and proper state. I appreciate that its promoters have tried as hard as they can to get these principles into a workable state, but despite their best efforts the amendments are simply not there.
Dr Huppert: Let me be clear that I have never said that I do not think the new clause is in a fit and proper state. There were some problems with the previous version, but I think that it is now in a good state. I dare say, however, that their lordships could tweak it.
Thomas Docherty: I therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 3, which places the burden of proof on the Member of Parliament. Again, let me quote what he has said. Although I accept what he has said about no longer seeing that quotation as accurate in terms of what he was trying to achieve, it reflects what new clause 3 says. He said:
“This test of “reasonable to believe” puts the burden clearly on the MP to disprove beyond doubt the allegations against him or her in the first instance. It would mean a high chance of success for petitioners unless their evidence was very weak indeed.”
The hon. Gentleman has already clarified that he does not support that, so if he does not support the intent behind new clause 3 I would gently suggest that the best thing would be for the new clause to be rewritten.
Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the errors in what I wrote on Lib Dem Voice and he will be pleased to know that it has been corrected, but in such a way that one can still see the original. I am not trying to hide the fact that I made an error. The bit that was not fit and proper was that aspect of the article on Lib Dem Voice and the new clause is still quite clear. The “reasonable to believe” test is a fairly common and standard one.
Thomas Docherty: Perhaps I can return to that point in a moment or two.
Let me explain what we see as the problems with new clauses 2 and 3 and the associated amendments. The court process can be started comparatively easily as 500 signatures would not be difficult to obtain and a rich group or a rich individual who wanted to attack a Member of Parliament could pay for lawyers once those signatures had been obtained to mount a
24 Nov 2014 : Column 673
court application that would be both costly and distracting for the MP to fight. New clause 2 does not require the case to be proved, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has admitted, beyond reasonable doubt or even to some lower standard, only that the court has “reason to believe” the Member of Parliament is guilty of misconduct in public office. The clause requires only an arguable case and not a proved case, which makes an MP vulnerable to losing in court when the allegations have been proved, to be taken forward.
New clause 2 also sets the standard by reference to the language of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office, which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge admits, is a criminal offence in England but not in Scotland or, I think, in Northern Ireland. If the court concluded that there was reason to believe that a Member of Parliament was guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office, in addition to the recall petition’s being opened the Member of Parliament would be incredibly vulnerable to prosecution for the criminal offence. A well-funded individual or group could achieve 500 signatures, tie a Member of Parliament down in difficult court proceedings, in which the attackers do not even have to prove their allegation, and, if they succeed in court, subject the Member of Parliament to not only a recall petition, but the possibility of criminal proceedings.
Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will be aware, of course, that there is an existing process whereby an individual or group—perhaps well funded—can bring a case to an election court. There is no appeal; there is judicial review. It has far more powers, because it may not only deny a Member their seat, after potentially expensive processes, but ban them from standing for public office, as happened to Phil Woolas, which is a much tougher sanction than that which is proposed here. Is he suggesting that that should also happen, because a large amount of money could be used to challenge an MP who had just been elected, which I think is what he is concerned about?
Thomas Docherty: The difference is that in the Woolas case in 2010 the complainant had to prove not just a level of expectation, but beyond reasonable doubt. There were full court proceedings and it was rightly determined—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this—that Mr Woolas should be banned from holding office for a period of five years, I think.
Thomas Docherty: Apologies. Those were proper court proceedings that resulted in a verdict. New clause 2 and its associated amendments would simply require a reasonable expectation, which we believe would be an unsatisfactory mechanism at the moment.
The other group of amendments, which centre on amendment 15, would add a further mechanism for the opening of a recall petition: when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. The difference between that gateway and the first gateway—conviction of a criminal offence—is that it is open even if the Member in question is not sent to jail. Although a conviction for that offence would normally follow a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution
24 Nov 2014 : Column 674
Service, it could follow an incredibly expensive private prosecution, which again would place a Member of Parliament at the mercy of well-funded vested interest groups. There are those who genuinely believe that we should endorse that process, but the Opposition do not wish to see that US-style pact, with well-funded vested interest groups able to recall, tie up and bog down a Member of Parliament for four and a half years of a five-year Parliament.
We are also concerned that that route could be used not only as an alternative to the new clause 2 mechanism, but as a de facto appeal. That is to say, if the Member of Parliament’s opponents do not win on the first attack, they could simply regroup and come back with a private prosecution. Furthermore, that route has no minimum threshold, as it does not require even the 500 signatures that the hon. Gentleman has advocated for new clause 2.
Dr Huppert: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Could not exactly the same be said of his point about expenses for parliamentarians? There is a similar issue with very specific offences that relate to fundamental aspects of the role, where conviction, even if not imprisonment, has to be taken seriously.
Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly to my final point. Our amendment 24 proposes that a further recall condition should be when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the offence, as clearly set out in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, of the misuse of public funds, committing fraud against the public purse, which we believe—I hope that the whole House agrees—is completely incompatible with the role of a Member of Parliament. Some will recall a case in the last Parliament in which a right hon. Member—a shadow Minister—was investigated by the police for having been involved in the leaking of documents from the civil service to the Opposition. If that case had been taken up by the police and resulted in a prosecution, I do not believe, and my colleagues would agree, that the leaking of documents, which we would argue can be seen in the public interest, should have left that Member of Parliament open to recall. As the offence of misuse of public office is so vague, it does not involve the same prescriptive reasoning as the 2009 Act, and it is open to vexatious challenge.
5 pm
Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman add to the criticisms that he has kindly and very well articulated the point that new clause 2 and amendment 15 would leave independent Members and Members who belong to small political parties extremely vulnerable because they could not afford to fend off multiple applications made under those provisions?
Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady is entirely right. There is significant concern, not only in Northern Ireland but in other parts of the United Kingdom, that repeated, harassing private prosecutions could be brought by well-funded groups.
By the admission of all concerned, more work still needs to be done on these two processes. It is less than satisfactory to be sending to the other place something that, by any standard, is not in a fit condition. To be
24 Nov 2014 : Column 675
clear, this House is being asked to delegate to the House of Lords responsibility for producing workable recall mechanisms. I regret to have to inform the hon. Member for Cambridge that I cannot, in good conscience, encourage colleagues to vote for new clause 2 and amendment 15 and their associated amendments, because it would be better if they were withdrawn and a fresh look at the whole issue was taken by the other place. May I make him an offer? If he withdraws his new clause and amendment, Labour peers will work with him and his Lib Dem colleagues to draft workable, robust and watertight proposals. We are clear that we are not giving up on the principle behind the new clause and amendment, and we urge him to take the same approach.
I want briefly to respond to the new clause and associated amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and others. We fully understand the rationale behind his new clause. The requirement that a Member of Parliament must take the oath before being allowed to represent the people who have elected them has placed not just his party—the Social Democratic and Labour party—but many others in an invidious position. The SDLP, in particular, has wrestled with this problem for many years, and I suspect that we are not going to solve it in one afternoon. He has raised a broader, quite interesting idea about whether the oath or pledge we undertake to fulfil is to our country as a whole or just to the constituents who may or may not have voted for us. I therefore suggest that the both the narrow question of whether the oath should be supplemented, or even replaced, by a pledge and the wider question of its purpose should be considered more fully.
The House will already be aware that the Labour party has proposed a constitutional convention that would meet after the general election to consider how we are governed, including the future shape, size and accountability of the second Chamber, and to examine codifying our constitution and reforming our political system. I urge my hon. Friend to seize that opportunity to make his case, as I am sure he will receive a sympathetic hearing. In that spirit, I urge him not to press his new clause to a vote but to ensure that his party plays a full part in the convention next year.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak at this stage of the debate to set out the Government’s views on the amendments and new clauses. It will not have escaped anyone’s notice, as hon. Members have said, that the Government have tabled no amendments on Report. That reflects our continuing view that the Bill, as drafted, meets fully and faithfully the commitment that our parties made in their 2010 election manifestos.
My party’s manifesto committed to
“introduce a power of ‘recall’ to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.”
The Liberal Democrats’ commitment was to
“introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a by-election for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing.”
The Labour party made a similar pledge.
Douglas Carswell:
Does my right hon. Friend think it is somewhat regrettable that the recall proposal does not actually have a recall mechanism in it? There is
24 Nov 2014 : Column 676
nothing in it that actually allows voters to have that binary referendum in their constituencies to decide whether or not to recall their MP.
Greg Clark: The recall measure contained in the Bill is precisely that envisaged by the parties’ manifestos.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that—beyond implementing our manifesto pledges—it is open to the House to make further amendments, and that, on the Government side of the House, they would be subject to a free vote, including by Ministers. Given that, all I want to do now is make some observations on the part of the Government about some of the advantages and disadvantages of the amendments in question. I repeat that it will be for the House to decide whether to adopt them.
I will first turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). As he has said, amendments 16 and 17 would alter clause 2 to ensure that historical offences would be liable to trigger recall, which reflects a similar amendment tabled in Committee. As I said when I last stood at the Dispatch Box, there is a case that if an MP were elected and his or her constituents were unaware of the fact that he or she had committed a crime because it had not come to court, that MP might be said to have been elected on a false prospectus. Against that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has pointed out, it remains novel for legislation in this House to have what could be argued is a retrospective effect, and for a criminal act to have consequences—in this case, triggering recall as an MP—that were not the case when the act was committed.
Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, would alter clause 1 to reduce the number of sitting days from 21 to 10, and the number of days if not expressed in sitting days from 28 to 14. It would also introduce a requirement that for a suspension to trigger recall it must follow on from a recommendation by the Standards Committee. Nevertheless, the length of time for which the MP would be suspended by the House may be different or the same as that recommended by the Standards Committee. That would ensure, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that an MP named by the Speaker for a second offence and suspended for 20 days would not be subject to a recall petition.
The argument in favour of the amendment is that more MPs would be caught by the provision who previously would have withstood the effect of recall. If the recall petition process had been in force with the threshold set at 10 sitting days, then of the 11 MPs suspended since 2000 seven would have met the condition for opening the process. Under a threshold of 21 sitting days, two MPs would have been caught. A further two MPs resigned before the suspension came into effect.
The argument against the proposed change is that the House may wish to impose its own suspensions—sometimes quite long ones—without the consequence of a recall process necessarily being triggered. In other words, the proposal would reduce the scope that the Standards Committee might have to issue sanctions without triggering the recall process.
Amendment 15, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), would mean that a Member of Parliament convicted of the
24 Nov 2014 : Column 677
common law offence of misconduct in public office would be subject to a recall petition process regardless of the sentence imposed. Misconduct in public office is a common law offence in England and Wales, punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There is, however, no clear, exhaustive definition of what misconduct in public office covers. Action that amounts to misconduct is likely also to be contrary to other laws. The boundaries of the offence are not clearly defined, so they are uncertain. Despite there being relatively few prosecutions each year, a disproportionately high number of those cases are appealed against.
The common law offence of misconduct in public office does not exist in Scotland, so there is a risk that an MP from Scotland could commit the offence of misconduct in public office while working in Westminster given that the offence applies in England, but not if the offence took place while working in their constituency.
Dr Huppert: The Minister is making an interesting point, but is it not the case that an MP taking any other action that was not a criminal offence under Scots law but was such an offence in Westminster could be punished for committing it in England but not for doing it in Scotland?
Greg Clark: Indeed. From reading the minds of Members who are interested in, and sympathetic to, a provision of this kind, it is not clear to me that they intended to have different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom, given that all of us have the common characteristic of being returned to serve in the United Kingdom Parliament after election by our constituents.
I want to address Opposition amendment 24 on the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The legislation was brought forward following the expenses scandal, and it deals directly with dishonest claims for MPs’ expenses. It is fair to say that that issue obviously provided some of the impetus behind the recall proposals in the first place. The offence in section 10 of providing false or misleading information in claims for allowances is intended to deal with the situation in which an MP provides information that he or she knows to be false or misleading. It does not cover innocent mistakes; we are talking about deliberately providing false information. So far, no prosecutions have been brought under the Act. I remind the House that the former MPs and peers who were convicted of fraudulent expenses claims were all sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
It seems to me that the question before the House on amendment 24, and indeed on the territorial aspects of amendment 15, is whether certain criminal convictions should be singled out as requiring treatment that is different from the treatment of other convictions. The trigger relates to imprisonment for other offences, many of which—including the Theft Act 1968—have been used to prosecute Members of Parliament. In considering this matter, the question in colleagues’ minds should be, to put it crudely, whether theft from a member of the public is less worthy of automatic sanction than theft through the IPSA expenses system. Treating those offences differently introduces a distinction that currently does not exist.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 678
Thomas Docherty: Does the Minister however accept that that can happen in other professions? For example, a lorry or taxi driver who receives a driving-related conviction can lose their job, even though they are not disqualified from driving, because committing a driving offence is incompatible with being a professional driver. I am sure that the whole House would agree that the misuse of public funds—stealing from the taxpayer—is incompatible with being a Member of Parliament.
Greg Clark: I accept that. As I have said, the Government’s view is that we should have a free vote on the amendments. I have pointed out the advantages of amendment 24, of which that is one, but it is fair to delineate the consequences. It would, for the very good reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, put a particular type of criminal offence into the different category of being particularly worthy of sanction, but it carries the implication that some equally egregious and offensive action—clearly, any criminal conviction should be so regarded—would attract a lesser sanction. To put it bluntly, in many people’s minds, theft from a constituent may not be seen as lighter than theft from the parliamentary expenses system; they would both be equally worthy of condemnation. I make that point to clarify the choice facing the House.
I want to address the new clauses and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which would introduce a new recall condition. New clause 4 would provide that, at the start of each Parliament, an MP had to subscribe to a pledge to act in accordance with the MPs’ code of conduct, and to uphold the standards of public life. Under new clause 5, if 500 of the MP’s constituents signed a petition complaining that the MP had breached the pledge, the election court could consider the matter and trigger the opening of a petition.
It came out in the debate, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, that his proposed system would overlap with the disciplinary system set up by the House, because nothing would prevent the election court from considering a matter that the Standards Committee had considered and come to a view on—perhaps a different view from that of the election court. It is not clear whether his proposal envisages public scrutiny of MPs’ compliance with the code of conduct superseding the role of the Standards Committee in recommending sanctions. In addition, it could be seen as setting the code of conduct on a statutory footing.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Foyle said that he would not press his new clauses to the vote, but that he wanted to explore the matter. There may be opportunities in the House of Lords for him to reflect on the matter. [Interruption.] Perhaps not personally, unless he is elevated. He would know more about that than I do. I dare say that he has friends and colleagues in the other place who will attend to what he has said in this House.
It should be noted that the code expressly excludes regulating Members’ private and personal lives,
“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally.”
I appreciate the aims of the hon. Member for Foyle. He recognises that it is necessary to refer to a set of rules or
24 Nov 2014 : Column 679
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.
Dr Huppert: We will see what happens in the Division, but will the Minister assure us that the Government, with all their advice and lawyers, will seek to come up with a more workable proposal in the other place if we cannot get our proposal through in this place?
Greg Clark: The Government’s demeanour throughout the debates on the Bill, if I may put it in this way, has been that we are open to facilitating the development of amendments and proposals that either House can debate. In conversations, I have been open to allowing officials to advise on the kinds of proposals that may or may not work legally. I see no reason why that should not continue. It is important to be clear that such proposals cannot carry the guarantee of a Government amendment, but I am happy to use my offices and those of my ministerial colleagues to have those conversations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I urge the Minister not to listen too much to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for the simple reason that there is a fundamental flaw in his proposals: we would be asking a court to make a judgment on whether such a petition should go forward on remarkably subjective terms. Each of the terms in his proposals—“trivial”, “vexatious”, “brought for party political purposes”, “misconduct”, “trust”—is entirely subjective and is surely not good enough for a court to be able to assess.
Greg Clark:
I said a few moments ago that it had not been possible, in good faith, for the Government to recommend an amendment that the House could responsibly be invited to support. Since further amendments or developments of the Bill are a matter for the House I will ensure that advice and help is provided, but these matters must be considered and there is no guarantee
24 Nov 2014 : Column 680
that a form can be found that avoids the practical difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s more fundamental point is a matter for this House and the other place, and any amendments would return to this House to be determined.
Let me set out some of the challenges in the new clauses, although some have been expressed already. The definition of misconduct is based on the common law offence in England and Wales, but its test is not just the criminal offence. As drafted, it could capture behaviour that would not be a criminal offence, including in an MP’s private affairs, and it would be for the court to judge whether certain behaviour in a Member’s private life amounted to misconduct. The election court would have to apply the test of whether the MP had committed
“misconduct to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust”.
I understand and appreciate the aim of linking misconduct to an MP’s standing in the eyes of the public, but as drafted it is a rather subjective test. The House will want to take a view on the kinds of evidence and analysis that a court might draw on to judge whether the public at large felt there had been a betrayal of trust, including where no criminal offence was alleged to have been committed.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): My right hon. Friend will be aware that that position has been discussed by the House as it relates to the Committee on Standards, and it was rejected.
Greg Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. It is now clearly on the record and Members can reflect on the view taken by the Committee.
Let us consider the body that would make the judgment about alleged misconduct. Election courts are convened to consider cases that question the outcome of an election, and they do not meet unless a petition has been brought. At the end of the hearings, the court determines whether the election was valid or void, which can take several months to a year. The court has no investigative capacity but hears views from relevant parties. Giving this new role to an election court would mark a significant departure from current practice, and as I said, it lacks the capacity to launch an investigatory process. Furthermore, no appeal is provided for in the new clauses; indeed, the election court is not currently subject to appeal but only to limited judicial review. That raises the question of whether the election court model is the right basis for the proposal. If it is, I suspect that a number of questions could usefully be asked when fleshing out the detail, including whether there should be an appeals mechanism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge proposes to set the number of petitioners necessary for the election court to consider an allegation of misconduct at 500. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed it takes only one person to make a complaint and to have it investigated by the police. Arguably, if the complaint is valid, it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of popular will the House will want to take a view on the right number of petitioners. The new clause increases to 15% the percentage of electors who need to sign the petition to trigger recall, which is higher than for the other conditions. However, 500 is a lower threshold for the initial trigger.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 681
If there are to be such additional triggers in the Bill, the House must consider whether to set out the relationships, or hierarchy, between the different recall conditions. An election court could look at issues that could also be considered by the Committee on Standards, which operates on a trigger, or by the police as the gateway to a criminal conviction. If the defence was rehearsed before an election court, or if the court’s finding was considered prejudicial to an MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for them to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in an election court could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.
Finally, let me turn to the issue of parliamentary privilege. New clause 3 includes a provision stating that section 9 of the Bill of Rights will not be affected. I understand that this is intended to ensure that privileged matters are not the subject of judgment by the electoral court. However, the use of the word “affecting” could be read in one of two contradictory ways by a court: either as a statement that privilege matters are excluded; or as an admission that the Bill overrides the Bill of Rights, and therefore impacts on privilege but only for these limited purposes, thereby inviting an election court to consider privileged issues as part of a case. If an exclusion is desired, it could benefit from clarification.
In conclusion, the Government were clear on Second Reading that we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment. My intention has been to summarise and highlight some of the points the current drafting raises. It is right that the House votes in full knowledge of the technical and policy challenges that remain, as well as the principles behind the amendments. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the remaining part of this debate.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con): I support the principle of the Bill: to enable the recall of MPs between general elections if they are considered to have conducted themselves in a grossly unacceptable or inappropriate manner that has led either to a custodial sentence or a suspension from the House of Commons for a period of at least 21 sitting days. Sentences of more than 12 months already lead to automatic disqualification under section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981. A third trigger has been proposed, in new clause 2, for a petition signed by 500 people to present allegations of improper behaviour. Presumably, this would not relate to illegal conduct, which would have already led to arrest and charge. I urge caution, because I think this opens up a whole debate on the interpretation of the word “improper”, which will mean different things to different people. An MP’s prolonged absence from the House of Commons without good reason would not be a criminal offence, but it would leave constituents effectively unrepresented and might justify a recall petition on the grounds of wholly improper conduct.
I did not support proposals in Committee for recall by 5% of the electorate for any reason. I predict that “any reason” could comprise such a wide spectrum as to invite frivolous petitions and could include, for example, disapproval of an MP’s political or religious views on controversial subjects such as: a Member’s
24 Nov 2014 : Column 682
sexual orientation, entering a same-sex marriage, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, smoking, hunting, alcohol, drugs, gambling and local planning matters. We could all think of any number of reasons that would give rise to frequent vexatious recall attempts of MPs with views that are unpopular with certain sections of their electorate. Recall could be generated easily by well-funded pressure groups or individuals, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.
I am also concerned that 500 constituents would form a very small percentage of the electorate. In a constituency of 85,000, 500 would be way below 1%. I have not done the exact calculation, but it would be somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I am sure somebody is scribbling away already to give me the exact figure. That threshold is far too low, and for that reason I will not support new clause 2, new clause 5 or the related amendment 34. Every Member of this House will know that an accusation against one of our number reflects on each and every one of us, and on Parliament as a whole. The blame falls collectively and the media rejoice in referring to MPs as though all 650 of us are guilty of something of which one or a very small number stand accused. We need to guard against a “guilty until proven innocent” culture, where an MP may be destroyed reputationally and financially, and then, when cleared, finds that the damage is irreparable.
New clause 4 proposes an MP’s pledge. This has some merit, although I have always assumed that its contents were implied when an MP is sworn into this House. The pledge would reinforce that, although I do not take comfort, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) does, that its contents would reassure the general public or help to deter vexatious accusations.
5.30 pm
I wish to relate my comments to the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. For anyone unfamiliar with this body, it does exactly what it says on the tin: it looks into matters relating to standards in public services and to public servants, including, of course, MPs. Its membership comprises one person from each of the three main political parties: Labour is represented by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), the Liberal Democrats by Lord Alderdice and the Conservatives by me. The other members do not declare their political affinity, and our deliberations are apolitical. Our investigations include wide research, public and professional consultation and seminars that interested parties may attend and to which they may contribute their views and proposals. It then analyses its findings and publishes a report. The common thread running through all the responses to our recent investigation into strengthening transparency around lobbying was the expectation of transparency. The slightest whiff of secrecy, deals done behind closed doors, collusion or corruption causes great concern.
The Chairman of the Committee, Lord Bew, has written about the importance of public perception and the complex ethical scenarios and possible conflicts of interest that need to be explored at the outset of an individual’s public service to avoid impropriety of any sort. To this end, the Committee recommended the establishment of an induction course for newly elected MPs to make them aware of the duties, responsibilities
24 Nov 2014 : Column 683
and expectations attached to the role of the MP in Parliament, in their constituency and in their personal conduct.
New Members are being attracted from an increasingly wide range of professional experience, which has been hugely beneficial to Parliament, because they bring with them additional areas of knowledge, expertise and experience, but coming to this place from a different professional environment can be a culture shock. Our procedures are complex and newly elected MPs need to know what is appropriate and acceptable, and—more importantly—what is not. The proposal for an induction course has received encouraging first reactions, and I hope that the parliamentary Committee on Standards will consider the recommendations in our lobbying report when forming its proposals for changes to the code of conduct and guide to the rules as part of the long-term review of the Common’s standards system.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments. The hon. Lady’s comments might relate to some of the amendments, but she will want to bring her remarks back within the scope of the discussion.
Dame Angela Watkinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.
Chris Bryant: I will restrict my comments to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others.
In the first round of these debates a few weeks ago, I supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) because I wanted a fuller system of recall that gave voters the opportunity to decide when a recall should be advanced, rather than keeping such decisions entirely within the House. At the time, I recognised the honest and honourable endeavour of the hon. Member for Cambridge and others in his party to find another way of opening up that gate, were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park to fail.
I must say, however, that I have profound misgivings about the new clause. First, many of the terms are imprecise. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that they were all common- law terms. That is true, but we are putting common-law terms in statute law, and quite often that leads to a difficult situation for courts and judges to provide decisions around. It gets much more complicated in that kind of environment, because they are looking for a steer—what did Parliament really intend by putting a common-law term into statute law?
For instance, new clause 3(5) sets out the condition that
“the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—
(a) not supported by the evidence”.
I think that is a fairly readily understandable concept; however, subsection (5) continues:
“or…trivial or vexatious in nature”.
I would suggest that they are two different categories and have generally been treated differently in common-law
24 Nov 2014 : Column 684
decision making. Yes, there is case law that relates to that—sometimes the court has said to the Crown Prosecution Service, “I’m sorry, this should not be considered because it is inadequately serious.” However, it is difficult to import that into this kind of decision.
“brought for party political purposes”.
I cannot conceive of a political argument that I have not advanced for a party political purpose. Maybe that makes me immensely partisan—[Interruption]—although I think that every Member who just said, “You said it,” or, “Hear, hear,” was being partisan in the very way they advanced that argument, or at least one could argue that. That is my central point: anybody could argue that any argument was being made for a party political or not for a party political purpose. Guessing what was in the minds of the 500 people who brought the case—500 minds, incidentally, that the court would have to consider in deciding whether something had been done for party political purposes, not one mind—makes a bit of a mockery of that phrase.
There is also a problem with what, precisely, it is that the court is deciding that the Member would have done. New clause 3(4) says:
“The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted”—
I do not like that word for a start, which seems remarkably American in tone—
“himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”
It seems to me that it would be almost impossible ever to adjudicate on such a term. How does one know that the misconduct is of such a degree that the public’s trust in the MP could or should be abandoned? We might be able to determine whether it had been, but I cannot see how a court could determine that the misconduct was of such a degree that the public should have lost their trust in the Member of Parliament, even if they might not have done so, other than the 500 people before the court. And what is this “reasonable excuse”? The concept of “reasonable” is well used in the courts, but what about reasonable excuse? Normally, the reasons for appeal are presented in statute law; in this case it is just a “reasonable excuse,” and we cannot possibly arrive at a decision about what that might be.
Dr Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant: Oh, all right, but I am trying to be quick.
Dr Huppert: I do understand; it is a shame we could not have had these interactions earlier, during my speech. The wording is taken from the Attorney-General’s reference No. 3 of 2003, which says:
“The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.
The wording is already extant.
Chris Bryant:
Yes, and it is remarkably poorly used, for the simple reason that it is regularly taken to appeal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene
24 Nov 2014 : Column 685
again, I would be happy to give way to him, although I would probably be being generous with other people’s time rather than my own.
My argument is that these are imprecise terms. That is not a good way of legislating, not least because at the moment that a court decided that there had been misconduct such as that on which the hon. Gentleman wants it to decide and that none of the get-out clauses in new clause 3(5) applied, to all intents and purposes the court would have decided, in the public mind, that the Member of Parliament was guilty—end of story—and I cannot see how that would not affect whatever might happen in a subsequent recall.
I have one final problem with the drafting. I understand why the hon. Member for Cambridge has provided in subsection (7):
“Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
That appears because several Members have pointed out that there is a problem: if the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament should be “impeached or questioned” in any court of law or any other place, it would be a bit rum for a court expressly to be told that it can go forward on the basis of whether or not an MP has “misconducted” themselves in a proceeding in Parliament. The new clause expressly says that one of the criteria that can be considered is “conduct”, whether it be as a Member of Parliament or not—completely and utterly irrelevantly.
I believe that there is a fundamental contradiction in the new clause. Under it, the court could decide that how somebody had spoken in Parliament or engaged in a proceeding in Parliament could be considered as relevant to a misconduct hearing. That would limit free speech, which we should guard jealously in this House, and, essentially, undo the Bill of Rights. It is a contradictory provision. For all those reasons, I could not support new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in a good deal of agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I came into this debate, most unusually, undecided as to how I was going to vote. No guidance was provided from the Whips about how I ought to vote, which I view as a great advance. It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that he is not trying to tell people how to vote. It shows a considerable wisdom to return to the traditional practice of having free votes on constitutional matters. I hope that this will be continued by other parties and in other Parliaments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says that I do anyway, and he is probably broadly right, but I think this should be encouraged across the House.
I was interested in new clauses 2 and 3. There is a need and desire to widen the ability for recall and to make it easier for constituents to remove Members of Parliament who they think have behaved improperly. The main thrust of the Bill is too narrow, which is a lost opportunity but not a fatal one because it can be developed in future Parliaments. Constitutional development often happens at a slow pace, which is not something I am against.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 686
I think we want constitutional reform to take place at a pace with which people are broadly comfortable and that carries the nation with it.
New clauses 2 and 3, however, fundamentally misfire. Instead of making this something that will be decided by the electorate, the provisions introduce a third party—the courts—to try to determine what the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out are fundamentally political issues. The restrictions to which he referred, particularly the third example where the misconduct case is “brought for party political” reasons, are a complete negation of what is being tried to be achieved. Any complaint must be brought for party political reasons, and any attempt to unseat a Member of Parliament is going to be carried out by somebody who has a party political affiliation of some kind, and it will be to the benefit of a political party to remove a Member of Parliament from another party. Even if the petition and process were started by some wonderfully high-minded figure, of which I am glad to say we have a very large number in North East Somerset, politicians would get involved in it because they would see the advantage, particularly if the Government had only a small majority, of removing a Member of Parliament or indeed of causing such inconvenience that would make it almost impossible for that Member of Parliament to continue in office.
Another issue involved is the legal costs. Are we to provide a fund to help Members of Parliament defend themselves in these circumstances, or do we find that the Member of Parliament could be bankrupted by the very process—to see whether he had committed misconduct in public office—and thus removed from Parliament anyway, even though the misconduct in public office could not, in the event, be proved?
We in this House have always sought to keep the courts out of our own proceedings. There seem to me to be two valid sets of people who can intervene in our proceedings: the general public who send us here, and who have an absolute right not to send us here but to send other people in our place; and our own systems, procedures and Committees, which are able to regulate internal goings-on in the House—a right that we declared long before we achieved it in the Bill of Rights.
5.45 pm
As I listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I remembered a gentleman whose name was, I believe, Ron Brown, a Labour Member of Parliament in the 1980s who, in the midst of proceedings in Parliament, picked up the Mace, waved it around, and—unlike my noble Friend Lord Heseltine—dropped it. As a result, the Mace was damaged, and it was sent off to Garrard, the then Crown jeweller, to be repaired. Ron Brown was faced with a bill and a suspension. However, he had acted because of his passionate belief about whatever the political topic of the day had been. That was a proceeding in Parliament, but it was certainly misconduct.
Thomas Docherty: As ever, I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s fascinating yet “in order” tour de force, but let me gently remind him that our proposals would exempt Members who fell below the standards that the Chair expected. Mr Brown, whatever else his flaws may have been, would not have been covered by recall.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 687
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but I am still discussing new clauses 2 and 3. I have not yet moved on to his amendments, towards many of which I am very sympathetic. What concerns me about the new clauses is that they would allow the courts to rule on what was going on in the House. It is very important to prevent that from happening, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. The courts are rightly reluctant to rule on what they believe to be fundamentally political decisions, and it seems to me that new clauses 2 and 3 would give them authority in regard to fundamentally political decisions, such as whether someone’s standard had been that of a decent Member of Parliament who had committed no offence.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that so reluctant are the courts—and rightly so—to judge on any proceedings in Parliament that when the court was considering whether Rebekah Brooks had ever paid a police officer for information, it was not allowed even to consider the fact that when asked on 11 March 2003, during a proceeding in Parliament, whether she had paid a police officer, she had said “Yes.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I happen to think that that is absolutely right, both from our point of view and from the point of view of the courts. It is important that our proceedings allow people to be honest and to speak freely without incriminating themselves, and that must be a protection that we seek to maintain. I think that if we undermine it by bringing the courts into the details of the behaviour of Members of Parliament, we will fail. I would go in the opposite direction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I would go the whole way and leave it to the British electorate. I would place my trust in them, and let them get on with it. But the worst of all solutions—worse even than a Committee of chums somewhere upstairs deciding that we have all behaved beautifully—is to involve the court system.
I also cannot agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which is rare, because I often do agree with him. He has proposed a “pledge” in new clause 4. I do not like the pledge. I think that it reads as a sort of bureaucratic announcement that we are all going to do good things, in that awful “speak” that is so common in conferences, about how you should be a leader and grab hold of your management skills, and all that waffle.
I do not like that at all. It does not accord with my vision of myself as a Member of Parliament. I think that Members of Parliament are here at the service of their constituents, and that their constituents will judge whether they are doing their job properly, rather than someone’s saying that they have not shown leadership. What on earth does “showing leadership” mean? If you are the Prime Minister it is easy, but what is a Back-Bench MP meant to do? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister always shows wonderful, clear, decisive leadership. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is cackling from his Front Bench. Many people think it is a pity that he did not show leadership by trying to become leader of the Scottish socialists, which would have been very welcome.
Chris Bryant: Or even the Scottish Labour party.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 688
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Or even the Scottish Labour party, which is much the same thing.
I do not think this presents the right image of what a Member of Parliament is trying to be. A Member of Parliament is not trying to be some sort of second-tier bureaucrat. A Member of Parliament is someone who is there to represent his or her constituents, to take a view on the interests of the nation, both nationally and internationally, to stand up and be counted on the basis of what he or she says or does, and then to be held to account by the electorate, rather than making some waffly pledge.
I also think that in trying to get away from the oath we already take, it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the oath. The purpose of the oath is not to show we do not want to change the laws, and it is not to show even that we are necessarily monarchists—although, for the avoidance of doubt, I certainly am—but it is to show that we accept the norms and standards of the country as they currently exist and are willing to use those to change the law through Parliament, and subscribing to that is an indication that a Member of Parliament will behave properly in seeking change, rather than do it in a demagogic or potentially violent fashion. Therefore the oath as a statement of loyalty to the nation via the sovereign is a very important statement and does not preclude people from holding republican views. It merely requires them to express them and act upon them in a parliamentary and legal fashion. I think that is an important distinction and it is why I would oppose new clause 4 and it follows that I would oppose new clause 5. I also think, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Foyle, that the two did not go together—that trying to give it to the people and then giving it to a court did not work.
I want to finish very briefly on the amendments from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. By and large I think they are extremely well considered. I believe that the right of recall should be as wide as it can possibly be made. I would like it to be more generous, and therefore reducing the threshold is sensible. It is obviously sensible, in the atmosphere over the last few years and considering the sensitivity of expenses, to say that somebody who has committed an offence in claiming their expenses ought to face the risk of recall. That ought to be a basis of it because it shows that somebody in this House has behaved badly in their basic terms of membership of this House, so I completely support that, but I cannot support the final amendment on retrospection. I think this is unjust. I see the reasons for it and the case the hon. Gentleman made about the Member of the Scottish Parliament who had committed many serious crimes, but it indicates a problem with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament that it could not do anything about that.
I also accept that somebody at, let us say, 30 who goes out and robs a bank is not thinking, “Good heavens, if I get into the House of Commons in five years’ time, I may lose my membership because that may be part of the penalty.” I am sure they are thinking more immediately about the risk of a police officer being there and catching them in the act and hauling them off to chokey, but none the less it is unfair to penalise people in a way they did not know could apply to them before they committed the offence, and if this House does not stand up pedantically for the rule of law, nobody will.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 689
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to say something? He is wavering about whether to intervene. I may be persuading him; he may wish to withdraw his amendment on the strength of what I am saying.
There is a further protection, which has been overlooked throughout this whole debate on the issue of recall, and that is that if the behaviour is so egregious—so shocking to all good common sense—then this House of Commons has the right to expel that Member anyway. We should not forget that, or allow it to wither on the vine.
Thomas Docherty: Given that this Act will, assuming it clears the Lords, come into force at the start of the next Parliament, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that anyone who chooses to stand for election at the general election on 7 May would know that, if they had committed an offence for which they were then prosecuted and found guilty, they would be subject to recall?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman puts as good a gloss on it as he can, but I do not think it changes the fundamental principle. We could equally say that a Member of Parliament who had committed an offence should be subject to double the time in prison, regardless of when the offence was committed. That would be fundamentally unjust. If we were to say that from tomorrow Members of Parliament who commit an offence should have double the time in prison, that would not be unjust. That would be simply saying that Members of Parliament should be held to a higher standard, and that is perfectly arguable, but to say for an offence committed previously that the punishment can be increased is to act against justice and that is something it is important not to do.
Dr Huppert: That is exactly what happened with police and crime commissioners in legislation for which I presume the hon. Gentleman voted. If they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence, they are debarred from the office.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the PCCs are rather an irrelevance to what we are discussing and I want to remain in order. I believe it is important to be pedantic about upholding the rule of law, and therefore I will oppose that amendment from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I will support his other ones, but I must reject the proposal that we bring the courts—
Lady Hermon:
May I put a proposition to the hon. Gentleman which is a possibility? On 17 July Lady Justice Hallett’s report was published and a statement was made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In that report, it was identified that 14 terrorists of the republican movement had been granted the royal prerogative of mercy. They are unnamed, but it is believed they might include senior politicians representing Sinn Fein. If the names of those 14 recipients of the RPM whom
24 Nov 2014 : Column 690
we know to be republican terrorists were to be revealed and included a Member of this House, would the hon. Gentleman think differently?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I always give way to the hon. Lady and she always then serves up the most impossible and difficult interventions. I think she is the Michael Holding of interventions, with these very fast balls being bowled at me. My stumps have disappeared behind me, but what I would say is that I would apply exactly the same rules to those people as to anybody else.
Thomas Docherty: If someone commits an offence currently for which the sentence tariff is less than one year, it is quite reasonable that in future the House of Commons may change the disqualification Act to bring that disqualification down to less than one year. That would equally apply to them. Why does the hon. Gentleman not think that this House has the right to recall somebody who has committed offences prior to this date?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is right about that because, interestingly, the ability to expel peers very carefully ensured it was not retrospective to the crime or to the sentence. It was right to adopt the principle that it is fundamentally unjust to punish people when they did not know that was the punishment at the time when they committed the offence, so I must oppose his amendment.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): My hon. Friend will see that sometimes when the courts come to sentence someone who is brought before them for an offence committed many years previously, they are obliged to look at the sentencing guidelines that applied at the time of the offence. The case he is making is absolutely right: we cannot have retrospective cases such as this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and we have seen this in some of the recent celebrity sex offending cases: people have been sentenced under the old rules. That is a good principle of law and this House ought to maintain good principles of law. That is why we should reject that amendment, and reject the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), because they bring the courts into our proceedings, but I think we should accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that allow more free-flowing recall, because ultimately we should trust the good sense of the British people, especially those in Somerset where most good sense is to be found.
Michael Ellis:
As usual, it is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). May I start by agreeing very much with him about the issue of retrospective penalty? It is more than guidelines; it is a fundamental principle of the law of England and Wales that penalties do not apply retrospectively. I have prosecuted and, for that matter, defended cases in court which are often historical offences—this relates particularly to sexual offences, but it can relate to other types of offence as well—where the penalties have moved on and often been increased in the intervening years. The historical sex offence with which the individual defendant is charged carries a
24 Nov 2014 : Column 691
maximum that no longer applies, but the court is bound by the maximum sentence that was in place at the time of the offence.
Thomas Docherty: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the sentence must reflect the crime, but the 1981 Act applied to cases prior to 1981. If an offence came to light now that was committed prior to 1981 and a sentence of a year and a day was handed down, the person would be disqualified.
Michael Ellis: There is nothing objectionable about a disqualification provision for those persons who have previous convictions, so the point that was made earlier about police and crime commissioners is not the point that I am addressing. The point in respect of retrospective penalty is the one that I have made—that to pass a penalty that did not apply when the offence was committed is contrary to natural justice and the provisions of English law as it has always existed.
I voted for real recall, as it is called, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I very much support the provision that would allow the electorate to have their say in this matter, but the amendments are unconvincing. Misconduct in public office is another offence that I have prosecuted. Those prosecutions often related to police officers who had misconducted themselves, for example, through the misuse of the police national computer for their own personal reasons. Intervening courts are not the right way of processing the issues that we are addressing here. It should be a matter for the electorate.
I am unconvinced by new clause 4 and the pledge, as was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. The oath that we already take covers the circumstance. When we as Members of Parliament take an oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance, that encompasses a duty on us to uphold standards in public life. Therefore I am not convinced by the assertion by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that another oath is necessary.
An election court is unnecessary and would be a departure from our practice. The election courts that we currently have do not exist 365 days a year. They are brought into existence only on a petition, in very exceptional circumstances. They are rarely established. They are not investigative, so they cannot investigate matters as we would envisage them wanting to do. There is no process of appeal, so an election court would not be the right basis. It would also be bureaucratic and expensive.
The amendments attempt to bring the electorate out of the equation and to put the matter in the hands of third-party expensive and bureaucratic interests, which I do not support. I have doubts about the reduction to 10 days because those persons who are found to have been rude, who have not apologised to the House, or who have done something that falls below the standards expected should not be open to such a provision.
I support real recall. The amendments are in many cases a device to avoid public scrutiny. The electorate should have a say in the matter. Those are my views.
Dr Huppert:
We have had an interesting and somewhat complex debate, and it is good to have more Members present at the end making arguments than there were at the beginning to hear the arguments made in the first place. It seems clear that there are those who agree with
24 Nov 2014 : Column 692
the principle of new clause 2 but not with the detail of it, there are those who oppose the principle of it, and there are those who oppose the principle of extending recall at all. It would not be appropriate for this House to delegate to the other place all our decisions about how we should be recalled. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on new clause 2 to see how many Members support that option in principle. I wish to press amendment 15 as well, because I believe the House would want to say that any MP who has been convicted of misconduct in a public office should be subject to recall.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 64, Noes 271.
Division No. 91]
[
6.5 pm
AYES
Alexander, rh Danny
Baldwin, Harriett
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Berry, Jake
Brake, rh Tom
Brooke, rh Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Cable, rh Vince
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Crockart, Mike
Dakin, Nic
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Durkan, Mark
Edwards, Jonathan
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Freer, Mike
Garnier, Mark
Graham, Richard
Hames, Duncan
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harvey, Sir Nick
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Lamb, rh Norman
Leech, Mr John
Lloyd, Stephen
Lucas, Caroline
McCartney, Jason
Mulholland, Greg
Munt, Tessa
Nokes, Caroline
Owen, Albert
Pawsey, Mark
Percy, Andrew
Reid, Mr Alan
Russell, Sir Bob
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Stewart, Iain
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, rh John
Ward, Mr David
Webb, rh Steve
Whittaker, Craig
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Wright, Simon
Tellers for the Ayes:
Sir Andrew Stunell
and
Jenny Willott
NOES
Abrahams, Debbie
Aldous, Peter
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Steve
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Beresford, Sir Paul
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blenkinsop, Tom
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brown, Mr Russell
Bruce, Fiona
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cairns, Alun
Cash, Sir William
Chapman, Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Creagh, Mary
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
de Bois, Nick
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doughty, Stephen
Doyle, Gemma
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Dromey, Jack
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Field, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fovargue, Yvonne
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francis, Dr Hywel
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gardiner, Barry
Garnier, Sir Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gray, Mr James
Greatrex, Tom
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hamilton, Mr David
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Havard, Mr Dai
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Healey, rh John
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hilling, Julie
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Johnson, Diana
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kane, Mike
Kelly, Chris
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lavery, Ian
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lucas, Ian
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCartney, Karl
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, John
McInnes, Liz
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milton, Anne
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Munn, Meg
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Parish, Neil
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Randall, rh Sir John
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Rudd, Amber
Rutley, David
Scott, Mr Lee
Seabeck, Alison
Selous, Andrew
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Simmonds, Mark
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spellar, rh Mr John
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Timms, rh Stephen
Tomlinson, Justin
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Watts, Mr Dave
Weatherley, Mike
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Andrew Lansley
and
Dame Angela Watkinson
Question accordingly negatived.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 693
24 Nov 2014 : Column 694
How an MP becomes subject to a recall petition process
Amendment proposed: 14, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards, the House of Commons order the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of requisite length.
(4A) A specified period is of requisite length for the purposes of subsection (4) if—
(a) where the period is expressed as a number of sitting days, the period specified is of at least 10 sitting days, or
(b) in any other case, the period specified (however expressed) is a period of at least 14 days.”—(Thomas Docherty.)
24 Nov 2014 : Column 695
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 204, Noes 125.
Division No. 92]
[
6.18 pm
AYES
Abrahams, Debbie
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benn, rh Hilary
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blackwood, Nicola
Blomfield, Paul
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brooke, rh Annette
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Chapman, Jenny
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coaker, Vernon
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dunne, Mr Philip
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Freer, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Greatrex, Tom
Greening, rh Justine
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hemming, John
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, Tristram
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Kane, Mike
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kirby, Simon
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Leech, Mr John
Leslie, Charlotte
Leslie, Chris
Long, Naomi
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Lumley, Karen
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McInnes, Liz
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Milton, Anne
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Ian
Nokes, Caroline
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Parish, Neil
Pawsey, Mark
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reeves, Rachel
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robertson, Angus
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sawford, Andy
Selous, Andrew
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Julian
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, rh John
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Ward, Mr David
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Wright, Simon
Tellers for the Ayes:
Tom Blenkinsop
and
Stephen Doughty
NOES
Aldous, Peter
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Cairns, Alun
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crouch, Tracey
de Bois, Nick
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Field, Mark
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Garnier, Sir Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Mr Marcus
Latham, Pauline
Lefroy, Jeremy
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Luff, Sir Peter
McDonnell, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Morgan, rh Nicky
Munn, Meg
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Redwood, rh Mr John
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Scott, Mr Lee
Simmonds, Mark
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stewart, Bob
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Tomlinson, Justin
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Weatherley, Mike
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Damian Green
and
Dame Angela Watkinson
Question accordingly agreed to.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 696
24 Nov 2014 : Column 697
Amendment proposed: 15, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) A further recall condition (misconduct in public office) is that—
(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in public office, and
(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.” —(Dr Huppert.)
This amendment provides for a further recall condition.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 119, Noes 193.
Division No. 93]
[
6.29 pm
AYES
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Baldwin, Harriett
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Bone, Mr Peter
Brake, rh Tom
Bridgen, Andrew
Brooke, rh Annette
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Cable, rh Vince
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crockart, Mike
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Dunne, Mr Philip
Durkan, Mark
Edwards, Jonathan
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Jonathan
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Garnier, Mark
Graham, Richard
Greening, rh Justine
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harris, Rebecca
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hermon, Lady
Hinds, Damian
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
James, Margot
Jenrick, Robert
Jones, Andrew
Kawczynski, Daniel
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lee, Jessica
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Lloyd, Stephen
Lucas, Caroline
Lumley, Karen
Mactaggart, Fiona
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milton, Anne
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Nokes, Caroline
Nuttall, Mr David
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Parish, Neil
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Percy, Andrew
Randall, rh Sir John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Selous, Andrew
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, rh John
Tomlinson, Justin
Vickers, Martin
Ward, Mr David
Webb, rh Steve
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whittaker, Craig
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Simon
Tellers for the Ayes:
Sir Andrew Stunell
and
Roger Williams
NOES
Abrahams, Debbie
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Steve
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Beresford, Sir Paul
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blenkinsop, Tom
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Brine, Steve
Brown, Mr Russell
Bruce, Fiona
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Chapman, Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doughty, Stephen
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Graham
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Gardiner, Barry
Garnier, Sir Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gilmore, Sheila
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gray, Mr James
Greatrex, Tom
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hamilton, Mr David
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Havard, Mr Dai
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Healey, rh John
Heyes, David
Hilling, Julie
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, Diana
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kane, Mike
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Dr Phillip
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Long, Naomi
Lucas, Ian
Luff, Sir Peter
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCartney, Karl
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McInnes, Liz
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Munn, Meg
Murray, Ian
Murray, Sheryll
Newton, Sarah
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Penrose, John
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Redwood, rh Mr John
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Rutley, David
Sawford, Andy
Scott, Mr Lee
Seabeck, Alison
Sheridan, Jim
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, Angela
Smith, Chloe
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stewart, Bob
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Walker, Mr Charles
Watts, Mr Dave
Weatherley, Mike
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Damian Green
and
Dame Angela Watkinson
Question accordingly negatived.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 698
24 Nov 2014 : Column 699
24 Nov 2014 : Column 700
Amendment proposed: 24, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
‘( ) A further recall condition (section 10) is that—
(a) the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims);
(b) the appeal period expires without the conviction having been overturned on appeal.
Sections 2 to 4 contain more about this recall condition.”.—(Thomas Docherty.)
This amendment provides for a further recall condition
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 281, Noes 2.
Division No. 94]
[
6.41 pm
AYES
Abrahams, Debbie
Aldous, Peter
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baldwin, Harriett
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benn, rh Hilary
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, rh Annette
Brown, Mr Russell
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chapman, Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doyle, Gemma
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Dromey, Jack
Dunne, Mr Philip
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Gardiner, Barry
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gilmore, Sheila
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Greatrex, Tom
Greening, rh Justine
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Havard, Mr Dai
Heald, Sir Oliver
Healey, rh John
Hemming, John
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kane, Mike
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kirby, Simon
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lloyd, Stephen
Long, Naomi
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Lumley, Karen
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McInnes, Liz
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Andrew
Milton, Anne
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Ian
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Parish, Neil
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reeves, Rachel
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sawford, Andy
Scott, Mr Lee
Seabeck, Alison
Selous, Andrew
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Simmonds, Mark
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, rh John
Tomlinson, Justin
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Ward, Mr David
Watts, Mr Dave
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, rh Steve
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whittaker, Craig
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Stephen Doughty
and
Tom Blenkinsop
NOES
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Harper, Mr Mark
Tellers for the Noes:
Dame Angela Watkinson
and
Damian Green
Question accordingly agreed to.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 701
24 Nov 2014 : Column 702
The first recall condition: further provision
Amendment proposed: 16, page 2, line 18, leave out “The reference in” and insert “In”. —(Thomas Docherty.)
This amendment and amendment 17 ensure that a recall petition may be triggered by an offence committed before the day Clause 1 comes into force where an MP is convicted of the offence on or after that day and after he or she last became an MP.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 236, Noes 65.
Division No. 95]
[
6.53 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Aldous, Peter
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baldwin, Harriett
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Benn, rh Hilary
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Blomfield, Paul
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, rh Annette
Brown, Mr Russell
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chapman, Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coaker, Vernon
Collins, Damian
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dunne, Mr Philip
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Greatrex, Tom
Greening, rh Justine
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Heald, Sir Oliver
Healey, rh John
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kane, Mike
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kirby, Simon
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lloyd, Stephen
Long, Naomi
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Lumley, Karen
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCartney, Jason
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McInnes, Liz
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Milton, Anne
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Mulholland, Greg
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Ian
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
O'Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, Sandra
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Phillips, Stephen
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Reeves, Rachel
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sawford, Andy
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Julian
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, rh John
Tomlinson, Justin
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Ward, Mr David
Watts, Mr Dave
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, rh Steve
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whittaker, Craig
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Wright, Simon
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Stephen Doughty
and
Tom Blenkinsop
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Beresford, Sir Paul
Blackman, Bob
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Burns, Conor
Clark, rh Greg
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Philip
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Ellis, Michael
Evans, Jonathan
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Garnier, Sir Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Hemming, John
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Luff, Sir Peter
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Morgan, rh Nicky
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Murray, Sheryll
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Redwood, rh Mr John
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Simmonds, Mark
Smith, Henry
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Syms, Mr Robert
Turner, Mr Andrew
Walker, Mr Charles
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Dame Angela Watkinson
and
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Question accordingly agreed to.
24 Nov 2014 : Column 703
24 Nov 2014 : Column 704
Recall petition to be made available for signing
Dr Huppert: I beg to move amendment 9, page 6, line 30, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
24 Nov 2014 : Column 705
‘( ) The Minister may, by regulations, having consulted the Electoral Commission, prescribe or amend the wording which must be included on a petition signing sheet.’.
This amendment allows for the Minister to bring forward detailed wording for the petition-signing sheet after having consulted the Electoral Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, page 6, line 40, leave out
“a by-election will not be held, as a result of the petition”
“therefore no by-election will be held.”.
This amendment clarifies wording prescribed for the petition-signing sheet.
Amendment 11, in clause 19, page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘( ) If a relevant circumstance arises, the functions of the Speaker under or by virtue of this Act (“the Speaker’s functions”) are to be performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means’.
This amendment clarifies that only a post-holder elected by the House will be able to exercise The Speaker’s functions under this Act.
Amendment 12, page 13, line 12, leave out second “or” and insert—
‘( ) a recall condition has been met in relation to the Speaker, or’.
This amendment provides for circumstances where The Speaker meets a recall condition.
Amendment 13, page 13, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on the clarification that only a post-holder elected by the House will be able to exercise The Speaker’s functions under this Act.
Dr Huppert: After all that excitement, I will try to be brief in presenting these minor and technical amendments. Amendment 9 seeks to deal with some of the awkward wording throughout the Bill on what is required for a recall petition. It simply states that the Minister should talk to the Electoral Commission and then come up with the wording. That would make for a much more flexible approach. I hope that the Government will agree that that is a cleaner and better way forward.
Amendment 10 deals with some particularly ugly wording. The current wording on the petition signing sheet states:
“If less than 10% of eligible registered electors in the constituency sign the petition, the MP will not lose [his/her] seat, and a by-election will not be held, as a result of the petition.”
“and therefore no by-election will be held.”
The amendment seeks to turn what is on the petition signing sheet into something approaching the English language. Again, I hope that is not controversial.
Amendments 11, 12 and 13 deal with some errors that were pointed out in Committee—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Other Members should not be standing and speaking in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is making important points about important amendments and must be heard.
Dr Huppert: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all the Members in the Chamber.